General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLet's Try It This Way...Under What Instances, Is It Okay To Praise The President On DU ???
D= Democratic Underground.
Perhaps when he gave us Obamacare? Sure many feel angry that we didn't get single payer, yet spin it any way you want. The votes were not there.
However Children can now stay on their parents policies until 26. That is a lifeline for youth in low paying minimum wage jobs and those coming out of college with large debt. We no longer can be denied healthcare for preexisting conditions. Let's be frank here, how many of you do not have one? Did you know that a victim of spousal abuse was a preexisting condition? People are no longer tied to their jobs due to health care benefits, they can pursue their dreams and get affordable healthcare.
Many of the uninsured were women, 19 million of them. And guess what, they will no longer be charged more for coverage than men. Imagine that! Yeah equality!
We have DODT and Doma. Rights! They have rights now in many states to marry who they want when they want and receive spousal benefits. They can now legally be at the bedside of a loved one when they are sick. That is a human right. Yes, I know the popular response is, he only went for it only when Biden brought it up. You always sell this President short. Change can be slow, painfully slow, yet we are getting there.
This President stands for equality for all, voting rights women's rights, equal rights.
There is more so much more, yet you know that, right? Well maybe not, because here on DU it is only Progressive to bash the President over the head day after day. Well you get the best of the best rec's and soar to the top of the page when you show how loathsome and disappointing this President is. All the while you claim that you voted for him at least twice, yet he has sorely disappointed you.
Bashing the party that is really at fault, the GOP and Baggers sadly don't bring the much needed rec's. So yahoo! Let's jump on Obama! It's so much fun and sadly popular on DU.
Never once, never once do you praise his successes. This goes way beyond "holding his feet to the fire." Way beyond.
He is a man, one man, and no not perfect. I for one never believed he was, nor expected him to be. It must be rather lonely at the top. This is how I see it. You do not vote for someone that you believe will make some much needed changes then turn your back on them. You don't leave them adrift. Obama stated more than once that he can't do it alone.
Our destiny is written by us. When we join together for a common cause, there is nothing we can't do ~ Barak Obama
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cali
(114,904 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Perhaps a tad over-sensitive
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Sadly some here believe that their is NO instance that is OK to praise or support the president, and when some of us do praise him or voice support, well it isn't long before that crowd shows up and does their best to change the subject and bring out all the negative things they can about him. It's really sad that some just can't admit he has done any good at all since he took office.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)They never admit it. Never praise him. That's just sad on a Democratic board!
theaocp
(4,236 posts)Anything else?
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)Our sitting first African American President can only get praise for his accomplishments in a protected group. Really? On DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND he can only be praised in a protective group! Sorry if I repeat myself yet your answer just blows me away.
You want to segregate this President and those that praise his accomplishments! WTF!
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Your response is one of the most egregious misappropriations of symbolism I've ever seen on this website.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)It is what it IS
And when I have visited the Dis, I read references to "BOGscum." Lovely.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)not for me. So I/We are "Bogscum" there. Nice.
Cha posted me a picture of a BOG,
Can't seem to find it but this is close...it might be it~
This doesn't look like scum to me. Thank you my dear Hekate.
Cha
(297,196 posts)"Are you unfortunate enough to have part of your property on a bog or marsh or to have a swampy ditch or large area of standing water? If your answer is yes, then your biggest landscaping challenge is going to be to change your perspective. Bogs, marshes, and swamps are all vibrant ecosystems that serve an essential environmental function, and you have become a custodian one of these treassures.
Besides being home and breeding grounds to many species of birds, fish, insects, mammals, and rare plants - bogs, marshes, and swamps are one of nature's primary water filters, removing pollutants and excess nutrients, and controling errosion. The quality of many lakes and some streams is heavily influenced by the quality of the bogs and swamps that feed them"
Delightful BOG
BOGsheshe2
(83,751 posts)I thought that was the picture that you posted me, but couldn't find the link~ so...
Cha.
We do have a way of doing that don't we~
BOG!
Cha
(297,196 posts)Cheers to us! 
BOG
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)A lot more to come~
Cheers~
Cha
(297,196 posts)
Wednesday
For instance Wednesday!.. The President will travel to Worcester, Massachusetts to deliver the commencement address at the Worcester Technical High School graduation ceremony.
He will also attend a DSCC event in the Boston area.
Monday Tuesday Thursday Friday and Saturday, too..
TOD
Lucky you, she!
BOG I am off Mon Tues and Thurs...not Wed! 
Thanks for the heads up anyway...I will be watching. Thanks Cha.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Hekate
(90,674 posts)I have posted now and again, but on the whole have no interest in the rampant hostility.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)
JI7
(89,248 posts)on dis are regulars on DU .
theaocp
(4,236 posts)What IS what it is? Please explain what in the hell you are talking about.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)and where right wingers are allowed. It's not relevant to this thread, but has been brought in anyway.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)theaocp
(4,236 posts)I thought you wanted to know "under what circumstances". That seemed pretty clear. What's with the bold terminology? What are you implying?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Animal, man, and swamp thing together! it has supernatural properties.
Response to sheshe2 (Original post)
struggle4progress This message was self-deleted by its author.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025059083
Further Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Leonhart
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Really who cares? If they are more concerned with cheerleading and being yes people then they are in the wrong business. Representation is about results...not "feeling good" or expecting others to. We get it. They support the president and want us to more than the policies themselves. If they spent as much energy trying to change things Obama said he expects us to vanguard instead of worrying about who is kissing whose butt then we would get more done. Obama turned out to be way more corporate, way more intrusive and way more willing to give away our advantage to the even more corporate republicans. If we keep moving the center to the right them the next thing they will pull off is forcing us to just be happy we got Jeb Bush instead of Ted Cruz. Well played Bush Crime Family Cabal and your lackeys.
JI7
(89,248 posts)
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . there are just too many folks compelled to speak out who have real and pressing concerns (and needs) that sometimes can't bear praise for some unrelated issue or action associated with the President.
Not all good from the WH is going to outweigh every concern out here. It seems like this is a static audience that graces this board, but the membership is so diverse that there are always going to be folks whose life experience and perspective is unable settle for gains made by this administration.
We should be sensitive to those unmet needs and expectations, if we expect any acknowledgment of those things we feel satisfied with.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)People have concerns, and they should be able to voice them, but some here seem to never admit that he has done "any" good, only bad, and that's just plain wrong, period. Even if they are not happy do they really have to try and hijack threads that are about things many of us find to be worth praise?
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . I think that's understandable, in most cases. Folks want to feel like they're being heard.
I do think some folks like to stir up trouble and some work to divide the community among ourselves. Still, I think it would be a tragedy if this board only focused on the things we like and didn't find room and understanding of those expressions of dissent and dissatisfaction.
It's not pleasant or comfortable to experience all of that (especially if you don't share those views), but I think it should be understood that there are many folks who can't countenance having their concerns overshadowed by a focus on things that someone else might think are going swimmingly. In most cases, that passionate and determined advocacy is a precious and beautiful thing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)currently owns the Senate and the Executive....and we have a slight chance to take back the House....but what do we hear "overzealousness on all sides".
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . since I came here in 2003, it's been a forum for folks to express concerns as well as a forum to express agreement with the party. It's well-positioned to provide a platform for both sentiments. It's not surprising to find that folks who feel compelled to post here are avid in those expressions; whatever is advocated.
It's the nature of advocacy that dissent or disagreement is amplified more than sentiment which expresses contentment with something or the other.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)glass....
This shouldn't be a place that treats Democrats like those at Free Republic treats Democrats. For crying out loud....No good deed shall go unpunished....even here. The criticism is not occasional....its constant....exactly like it is visiting one of those sites...and if terms like "Blogscum" are being bandied about towards those that support the Democratic President and others.....How is it any different than trying to hang out at Freeperville?
It certainly doesn't make us look very sure of ourselves and our positions!
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . it what it is here, and I'm not sure that anything I say to try and explain why is going to suffice for you.
Try and understand DU this way . . . it began as a voice against the worst of the Bush era abuses and assaults on democracy, dissent, and our constitution. Even though we elected a Democratic president, many of those issues which inspired this forum haven't been resolved, and many of those concerns have actually been exacerbated and deepened; even with the election of and advancement of Democrats.
Moreover, I think it's a mistake to view this forum as some static or cohesive community of concerns. There is a myriad of opinion and interest here - much like the country as a whole - which is never going to be completely assuaged by the balance of power in Washington. To me, that's a refreshing and reassuring dynamic which ensures the vigilance and commitment that is necessary to effect progressive change.
I am sorry that a few folks are working overtime to pluck at your last nerve.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and I decided that people need to push back on that noise....be heard. This place should be the one place Democrats should be expect to be able to see Democrats being respected...and I can hear the reply already "they have to earn respect"....the problem is....nothing is EVER good enough. Its stick stick stick all the time....rarely any carrot. And those that actually try to use the carrot....are called "Bogscum"? How's that for ironic!
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . and I certainly appreciate the efforts, like your own, to present what you believe is good about and proper for our party. More power to you, VanillaRhapsody!
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Which I now find some people above have shortened to "the Dis" or "dis". It will help keep this thread clear if we keep the 2 sites separate.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because that is the impression that I got. And is the Dis going to be the another yet another Blog where members of DU are going to be brought up and "discussed"? I note that they seem to know about the BOG....so obviously it WAS people FROM DU...
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Cavers know about it, for instance, and they've been attracted here. I can find 2 people using it on The Discussionist; one says they used to post here, but don't any more (which may include that they were banned); the other appears to be someone who is currently suspended from here for have 5 hides in the past 90 days.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)members....
And guess what....if you google Bogscum....you get links to Free Republic....
My point stands!
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)and I found out for you. I pointed out that you don't have to be a DUer of know of the 'BOG'.
So what was your point? And what are the contradictions you think you've seen?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)See, to me, without those traditional Democratic Party policies, the Democratic Party is just the Republican Party in drag. Take a look at Mary Burke, Democratic candidate for Governor in Wisconsin. She's as Republican as they come, policy-wise. Should we support her anyway?
Seems like having a "Democrat" in the governor's mansion who is pushing Scott Walker's policies down our throats is actually worse than having Scott Walker do it. We'll still all get shit on, and Democrats will take the blame.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Very well said.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)I thought it referred to democratic policies and the values of democracy, forced underground by its social antithesis. This implies resistance to antidemocratic ideas wherever they are found, even in your own home...especially in your own home.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)The DU Mission Statement in full:
• Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
• Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
• Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
• Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
• Having fun!
After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.
We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office.
DU is a board for liberals. Beyond agreeing to help "elect more Democrats to political office", DUers are not required to be Democratic Party members, are not required to be Democratic Party partisans, are not required to hold any particular viewpoint with regard to the Democratic Party - and, in particular, are not required to either believe or vow, Democratic Party, right or wrong.
DU is NOT "ABOUT the Democratic Party" - it's about politically liberal people discussing issues. It's a "grassroots community" - that's the Underground part.
You are free to be a diehard Democratic Party partisan here, but it is not a requirement.
MADem
(135,425 posts)So to some extent it IS about the Democratic Party. From the TOS:
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
Now, sure, we can get away with a lot outside of "election season," but by our words we are known--both to other DUers and the admins.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Therefore, the TOS you quoted just above does not apply to criticisms of him.
Furthermore, it could be argued that the defense of Obama here interferes with the process of getting Democrats elected to offices in 2014 and 2016. The defense of Obama bogs and clogs up the message board.
MADem
(135,425 posts)".... the defense of Obama here interferes with the process of getting Democrats elected to offices in 2014 and 2016. The defense of Obama bogs and clogs up the message board."
I think that is probably one of the most bizarre comments I've ever seen on this board.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....where multiple members have posted their sense of offense at the vicious attacks here by defenders of Obama.
And I suppose you think the Joan of Arc reference to me is an insult? Duly noted.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That picture is ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS.
Know your meme...
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... to our party as it alienates the base.
I have difficulty fathoming why liberals would defend right-wing policies, and even more difficulty understanding why other liberals can't see this harms our cause.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Right wing policies are those touted by Boehner, Cantor, et. al.
Frankly, I'd like, so long as we're talking about bullshit policies, to get rid of all the Paulbot shit, dressed up in liberal affectations, infesting this board like a horde of termites.
There's nothing liberal about those assholes--the attitudes on pot are just coincidental.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Do you believe drone strikes, spying on citizens, chained CPI, too-big-to-fail-or-jail, secret trade agreements and similar policies are consistent with Democratic Party principles?
MADem
(135,425 posts)You know, those "So you think..." arguments are stale as last week's toast.
I guess all the help those terrible Democrats did in helping Liz Warren win her Senate seat, and vaulting her as a newcomer to the banking committee means nothing?
And when, pray tell, has "chained CPI" been IMPLEMENTED? Not tossed out like a crumb to get assholes to the table, but IMPLEMENTED?
And what "secret trade agreements?" Getting mad because you aren't "in" on the discussions that predate any actual agreements doesn't cut it. Did you want a seat at the table for the Berghdahl negotiations, too? Because it's your "right?"
As for "spying on citizens" you might have crabbed and cried about that a decade--or three--ago...and make sure you yell at your supermarket, drugstore, airline, and remember that every time you give up information to facebook, twitter, and every contest entry, that you are part of the problem. Get rid of that smart phone, too--it can track you, and that's no good (unless you're at the bottom of a ravine). Only drive an old car, the new ones have that ONSTAR thing in 'em that can be activated even if you don't pay for it (Obama didn't invent ONSTAR, either, just so you know). Oh, and let's take down every camera that records the average person a dozen or more times a day--in some urban environments, hundreds of times a day--yeah, that'll happen because you say so.
And, so long as we're complaining, let's tell the Russians, the Chinese, the Brits, the French, the Romanians, the Israelis, and every other nation with skin in the monitoring game to just STOP because we don't LIKE it! That'll convince 'em!
You know, Chicken Little learned that insisting that the sky is falling will persuade people to disregard you after a time. It's a good lesson.
The horse has left the barn. If you think you're going to stop surveillance with a foot stomp and a "That's outrageous" you'd better think again.
It's too late, baby! Even if we don't do it, someone else will. Welcome to the new world--if you don't want to be surveilled, you will have to take active measures to avoid it. Go on--start by getting off the net, and getting rid of that smartphone...it's the only way to be "sure" that no one sees what you're doing!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)"... chained CPI ... tossed out like a crumb to get assholes to the table..."
Yes, the basis for the starting position in any negotiation should be to adopt the opposition's positions as your own. At least if you want to give away the store.
A non-right-wing starting point would be lowering the eligibility age for SS, increasing the benefit and lifting the cap, not "a crumb" of capitulation. Unless you're trying to make things better rather than worse.
And it's not "a crumb" to SS recipients. It's food on the table.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Why don't you try, for a change, to see the world as it is?
Instead of pretending that you're "Shocked, SHOCKED!!!!" and "Outraged, I tell you...OUTRAGED!!!!!" at what has been going on for many decades, now?
So, tell me--has the "Chained CPI" thing happened? Hmmmm? No? Anyone? Beuhler?
So stow your faux drama about "crumbs," do. No changes have been made, so stop crying like they have been. The sky is NOT falling.
With people living and working longer, and remaining healthier into old age (and thanks to that Obamacare that some so-called lefties were crabbing about on this message board, they'll be healthier still as time goes by) you're not going to see the age for SS lowered. Holding it will be a massive victory. And since the GOP won't negotiate with the melanin-enhanced POTUS, they won't be able to make any changes. That's a win in my book.
Still and all, Obama can legitimately say he tried to get them to talk to him, though they refused.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)Thank you so much for such an entertaining episode. Well done.
I especially liked Alice through the looking glass! 
MADem
(135,425 posts)When Alice was mistaken for Joan of Arc I felt like I'd just gone through that doggone looking glass, myself!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)sheshe2
(83,751 posts)And have compassion to many that do.
However, have you noticed that many here that bash this President daily never express a positive? Never. He is called a POS and that stands on DU and is applauded by many.
Change my title, omit Praise and substitute Criticize. That is part of an OP from last night. They admitted that they do it for the rec's.
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . and I know you have no problem with dissent, sheshe2.
Thing is, I don't believe most folks seek out a place called Democratic Underground to express satisfaction, even during a Democratic presidency. Contented people seem to be less likely to speak out than those who believe their voices aren't being heard, who believe their concerns and needs aren't getting enough attention and focus. It seems natural and understandable, to me, that discontent and disagreement would attract more support and attention than those things we feel have been resolved.
Yeah, the internet is a malcontent's haven. I just happen to think the reality of that is a motivating and energizing catalyst in our necessarily perpetual and vigilant advocacy.
Try to not take that dissent personally, and maybe take some comfort in how integral the instinct to agitation is to our efforts to effect progressive change.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)He and Holder have been very good on sentencing reform, especially around the hideous crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, which affects almost exclusively black people. And now, they're actually asking drug war prisoners to apply for clemency.
The Obama administration has not threatened other countries that are enacting or contemplating drug reforms. That's a first.
And they're dealing with medical marijuana and marijuana legalization in a relatively enlightened way. Yeah, there have been raids on medical marijuana people and some of them are rotting in federal prison, but that seems to have lessened in the past couple of years--partly because people know what the Justice Department is going to go after, and partly because Justice has largely limited itself to people who violate its guidelines.
But Obama is basically allowing state-level legalization to take place. They could have fought it in various ways, but they haven't.
babylonsister
(171,059 posts)So... Since The GOP Has Become Batshit Racist And Crazy... We Are Not Allowed To Criticize The Pres?
Your post is so timely, thank you! Obama has earned and deserves total respect. I am proud of him and not afraid to say so.
But you knew that.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)Thanks~
And ya! I knew that.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)to see a thread like that on a place that calls itself DemocraticUnderground. Not in a million years. What a weird thing to post on a site like this.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Anti Obama posts get more recs. I believe thats was the jist of it.
My best explanation for the lack of support he receives here as opposed to the broad support he receives from the party as a whole is because the make up/demographics of DU is not representative of the party's demographics nationally. The base of the party is women, Blacks, Asians and Latinos/Hispanics along with LGBT and young people. The make up of DU skews heavily older, whiter, and more male than the Democratic party and has a heavy streak of Libertarianism. We have been seeing a bit of a xenophobic attitude lately, a coldness towards AA's, some homophobia and a nice tasty dash of sexism to round out the course. And those posts can go to jury and stand.
Why would anyone who isn't already here who is of the base as i described above want to join and engage with us just to be called a Obamabot or a reverse racist or a screeching feminist or told to speak english or go away by democrats?
Our democratic board has so much in common with republican boards i like to read and compare us to them and sometimes i LOL at the similarities between their posters and ours.
I have read too many times here that we need to try to reach out to... Drumroll please...... WHITE MEN! Not our base, and our voters, but we need to reach out to old white males and not say stuff that might make them anxious. Why? Because the board is full of them and some of them think that the nation is not paying attention to their problems.
That's my tldr explanation of the sickness that we suffer from.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)get the impression from reading comments at this site that most posters are older and many are really old. We have the Baby Boomers Forum and the Seniors Forum. But where is a forum for young people? There isn't one. I don't mean to sound ageist, and I realize we all get there one day, but I wish there were more people closer to my age at this forum.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)That's actually not a bad idea. I remember when I was on Datehookup.com, that site had separate forums for all the age groups, and people were allowed to post random stuff.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I only used 35 because i'm 33 and i want to be included.
Somebody needs to start one.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)I am almost twice your age, bravenak.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)focus of the forum would be issues important to a younger age group. And conversely I'm sure that I would be welcome in the seniors forum to discuss issues important to seniors. As I said we all get there one day.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)And LOL, I don't consider myself a senior yet and am not part of that forum. Give me another 15 years or so, maybe I will apply. I feel pretty young. You will to when you get here. You are as young as you feel!
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Depends on which you prefer.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)I was just referring to our chronological ages.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)You either get old or you die young.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We would need somebody to talk to instead of just the ten or so of us posting gifs and wondering why it's so quiet and lonely.
Maybe i should send out a PM to ten trusted DUERS and ask what they think. 
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)thanks sweetie!
And I just choked on my wine reading your last line!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts) 
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It seems like the education group is more for policy than anything (nothing wrong with that, my guess is there are a lot of teachers on DU). I support both ideas.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)
Actually, it's easy easy to start a new forum, so have at it.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Well you don't have to get older. There are alternatives.
icarusxat
(403 posts)if you are wise beyond your years, join the chorus of us...
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)whether we like it or not. At my age I am ineligible for Medicare for instance. And in some states older people are required to renew their driver licenses more frequently. We can't escape our ages completely.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It was the way it was in school and growing up. Every little mistake could be dwelt on, because there wasn't as much information out there as there is now. You had people who were upset at scores of 99% on tests because it was not 100%. Nobody believed in encouragement as they do today. It was all assuming the worst of you and dwelling on mistakes and paying no attention to successes, taking that for granted.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)You are damaging my brain.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I read that post and just thought, "WTF???", and quickly moved on - because I couldn't figure out how to even begin to deal with the unbelievable wtf-ness of it.
I'm so glad you posted your response - it's perfect! 
treestar
(82,383 posts)What do you not get? If you grew up in the 60s you got a lot of criticism. Because they believed you need that or you'd have too big a head.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Wealth and Corporate Power.
That's a problem that affects all of us.
Liberal on "social issues" if one is apathetic/supportive of the status quo of concentrated wealth and power doesn't cut it in my book.
I would hope that women,women, Blacks, Asians and Latinos/Hispanics along with LGBT and young people would also be critical of that, because it is oppressing you too. After us "old white guys" are gone, you will have to live under the stifling weight of an entrenched Oligarchy and Monopoly Capitalism unless we all push the party back to economic progressive populism and liberalism.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I think it will take much less time than the estimates project. I have two children, he has four, i expect to have two more and that will still mean i will have the least amount of children for a Lady in my family. My grandmother had ten. Most of my friends have several already and are continuing to procreate. Many of my white friends are in mixed marriages and have several children who identify as asian or black or hispanic not white. Minorities are not cozy with wall street for the most part, and women especially single one are less likely to vote Republican. So in twenty years we will not have 2 Parties run by Old white Dudes who service the rich. We will be voting ourselves a right good part of their money, praise R'hllor.
You got to realize that power is shifting towards a more liberal society and that it is the old white men who are standing in the way of progress, passing shit laws and fighting against womens rights. The kids growing up see their congressmen screeching about illegals, urban youths, thugs, wetbacks and more. They will not be voting for Republicans. And Democrats better get our shit together and start bringing in the next generation quickly before Republicans decide to get smart, steal our platform, and out voters. Because sorry to tell you, the youth is not interested in the NSA all day everyday, they post every private thought they have on Tumblr, facebook, etc.
They will kill wall street when they get their time. I'll be right here helping them find the means. And we need their help to do it because the old party bosses still control the legislature, for now.
The only way to get the votes is to get the voters engaged. And horror stories about how much you hate Obama is not a good lure when you are fishing in a pond of Obama supporters, and the youth , women, lgbt's, and minorities are supporters of this President. You are driving them away and losing us votes.
Rather then referring to old white men you ought to get off your immature high horse and start looking at issues in terms of issues and realize that you're playing the same game as the Republicans in terms of stereotypes.
A lot of old white guys were championing civil rights equality, etc. long before the next generation was even a glimmer of possibility.
And if you're biding your time until you get a chance to "kill wall street" I'd say you're blowing it if you ignore the continuing entrenchment of the power of the Gilded Age Oligarchs -- a lot of us old white people have been sounding the alarm about that for years. . And you also a bit blind if you ignore the fact that many of your contemporaries are contributing to that process in their professional lives even as they champion social issues.
What is behind the dislike of much of what Obama does is not because he is liberal on some social issues, or is an African American, or any of that. It's because he is contributing to a wrong turn towards increasing Corporate Power and decimation of the economic safety net for average people. Ad so many democrats have done, they package Republican economic policies in a more appealing social package.
That's the problem. Some old white guys conribute to the probkem, but so does anyone who gives them a pass and says it's okay to do things like sell out the Internet and pass secret right-wing trade agreements
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I just laid out the world as seen from my view down here in the gutter and my telling you that the vicious of the attacks against the president is not winning voters to our side. It is not helping to engage the youth or women or minorities. You know, the people who make up the bulk of our party.
Those low minded liberals who try to accomplish what they can and move us toward a more perfect union are not the ones who will receive the wrath of the future voters.
And talking down to younger voters and blaming my contemporaries for not fixing the problems caused during YOUR time, during the reagan revolution is silly and disingenuous.
We had two choices for president and we choses the best candidate both times by electing Barack Obama, i am Proud of my choice and i would fill in that bubble for him over McCain or Romney any day. There were no other candidates that appealed to a majority of voters.
If you have problems with the amount of power corporations have you need to look to the legislature and the supreme courts. Blaming everything that has gone wrong in this nation on one man majes you all sound....... Like republicans.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I don't remember ever seeing it happen here.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)This is my view of the issue. Sometimes the truth hurts us the most when we are unaware that there was even a problem.
Would you prefer i not give my opinion? The older people in the party need to start reaching out to the next generation of voters, be more inclusive, and notice when there are no minorities in the conversation.
And when we speak out, instead of getting pissed and feeling oppressed, realize that you are not the oppressed, we are. And we are asking to be included in the discussions and sometimes we get offended when our politicians that we support are denigrated by the party. We would like for you to support us a bit more and we will return the favor in the future. Our votes matter and our voices too often get shut out by the cacophony of wailing and the gnashing if teeth.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)Yes.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am sorry you are hurt by my words and i want you to know that i have never seen you post anything harmful or hurtful to me. We all suffer the sins of others in our nation.
The woman's burden. It's a shame really, white women just barely got the right to vote and own themselves and now we lump them in with their former oppressors. I do feel bad that i hurt you.
I just cannot think of another way to express what i see.
Number23
(24,544 posts)For simply daring to note the obvious -- that many DUers are out of touch with the Dem party and for wanting to have a forum for members close to his age?
For sure, that is something I know I don't remember seeing here before.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)2012 exit poll: http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#exitPoll
Look at the 'Age by Race' category. because 'white 45-64' is by far the largest category, it's also the largest category for 'voted for Obama'. Here's where the Obama vote came from:
White 45-64 11.02
White 30-44 6.84
White 65+ 5.46
White 18-29 4.84
Black 30-44 3.76
Black 45-64 3.72
All other 3.35
Latino 18-29 2.96
Black 18-29 2.73
Latino 30-44 2.13
Latino 45-64 2.04
Black 65+ 0.93
Latino 65+ 0.65
You are right that women are the majority of Democratic voters (29.15% to 21.15% men). The median age for an Obama voter is about 44 (see the figures for the 1st "in which age group are you?" question). If you regard "under 45" as 'youth', then you can say youth make up the bulk of the Democratic party, but most people would use a younger age than that.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Blacks vote democratic whether they are male or female, a higher percentage of us vote for democratic candidates than any other group. Hispanics are a growing population demographic and we vote democratic also, a high percentage of us vote dem. Millenials are a large group also and skew left, young minority millenials vote dem in high percentage with white millenials voting dem less than their minority counterparts. As you go up the age demographic the votes for republican candidates go up with minorities skewing left and the majority skewing right. This is not a broadbrush, this is just how the votes go and the political views lay of Americans.
I wasn't saying youth make up the party, i was saying that the party is made up of women, minorities, lgbts and younger voters with white males voting in lower percentages for democratic candidates. 18-35 or 40 to me is a young voter since we don't get to start voting until 18. This information is not controversial.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)"The base of the party is women, Blacks, Asians and Latinos/Hispanics along with LGBT and young people. "
"the youth or women or minorities. You know, the people who make up the bulk of our party. "
You seemed to think these categories actually described majorities in the party. That's only true for women. And yes, "it is the old white men who are standing in the way of progress, passing shit laws and fighting against womens rights" is a broad brush.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The majority of dems are not older white men. They are women, minorities and younger voters. I am absolutely correct without even using percentages or proportions. And it is old white men standing in the way of my progress. Most of them are republican.
You have not seen restrictive laws against black votong and womens wombs put forwards by young white women. Old white men push those laws and get them passed.
JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts)You have not seen restrictive laws against black votong and womens wombs put forwards by young white women. Old white men push those laws and get them passed.
madfloridian posted in an op she's been away for a year. She doesn't have any idea about what we've been reading around here. It's creepy sometimes. But a youth board or nextgen - that sounds cool. GenX and younger. Cut off at issues for those born in 69 or later.
Why? We understand the deck of cards in play and put Bill Clinton in office.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There are a lot of young people I admire and respect. It has nothing to do with age.
It has everything to do with attitude. There are huge numbers of young people I would not apply the term immature to.
But your dismissiveness of anyone not within your own definitions of demographically acceptable is immature.
Your statements are engaged in the pitting of people against each other is a lot like the mirror image of the GOP and wingnuts. You equating a lot of stuff by age, race, sex, ethnic etc.
I LIKE President Obama, agree with him on much (including the fact that he has a 3D view of racial issues) etc. Etc. Blah.
But on the issues that ultimately drive who gets what, who holds the power, etc. I profoundly disgaree with many of the things he has done...Just as I profoundly disagree with the
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)The problems became entrenched during the "Reagan revolution" and the problems continue due to the influences of the Democrats that decided to absorb the Reagan economic policies into a new branch of "Democrats" (New Democrats), as well as the party that spawned Reagan, and among the New Democrats that have adopted his policies is our current president.
You need to study up on the topic if you wish to discuss Reaganization issues, because in fact those are centrist positions by design and definition.
A quick primer below: (there is much more to know about the 30 year "Reaganization" effort against our party which is responsible for shifted us so far to the right of center regarding all but social issues, but a few key facts should get you started on understanding "Centrists" and how much damage has been done by them).
New Democrats, in the politics of the United States, are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with centrist social/cultural/pluralist positions and neoliberal fiscal values. They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions.
After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner.
The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for neo liberalism and the New Right. In a sense, 80s Moderate Republicans are almost identical to "Third Way" Democrats, one reason I found Obama's statement that he was, policy wise, closest to an 80's Republican refreshingly honest and at the time I gave him kudos for his honesty.
The idea that such sold out Democrats are liberal simply because they champion liberal social issues is the reason they have been so effective in imposing conservative economic policy during those times when the Republicans lacked the power to do so.
I think your youth is partly to blame for thinking Reaganesque policies are liberal because the DLC Democrats support them when in fact liberal economic theory was part of the party from the thirties until the eighties. A time before you were politically active and so you likely do not know that Keynesian economic policy is a Democratic option that is no longer tried (but yet was the most successful for the larger population than Chicago school economics has ever been).
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I'm of a generation when left economic policies were actually the norm. People who became politically aware after Reagan have no idea how this country used to be, what the Democratic Party used to stand for, what life was like in the pre-corporate globalization years when unions were strong, monopolies were broken up, tariffs protected domestic production of goods, and taxes on the upper income brackets were high.
It has long astounded and saddened me that there are so many people willing to accept social liberalism as sufficient, as the benchmark of being "liberal".
historylovr
(1,557 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 8, 2014, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)
This is exactly why I don't see the Democratic party becoming more liberal, even after the "old guys are gone." It has less to do with demographics than the political atmosphere of the last thirty or so years and where it's pulled the party.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)are all too often the unwitting tools of the 1%.
For those ignorant history and present reality, I post these educational materials for their convenience, in the hope they may get an inkling of the reality of our present situation, and not doom future generations to lives of complete hopelessness by naively aiding and abetting the real enemies of democracy, freedom, and most everything that is good and beautiful in our world.
Please, stop living in the past, and being part of the problem, and become an active part of the solution, and help give yourselves and future generations a shot at a life with a safe environment and real options for a high quality life.
Don't support this:
Support this:
“Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness – and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we’re being brainwashed to believe.
The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.
Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them.
Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
― Arundhati Roy
lib·er·al
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
con·serv·a·tive
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)What majority would that be, could you clarify? Please?
So now you think old guys are the problem?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He said 'once us old guys are gone', so i repeated it and continued with my line of thought.
The new majority as i see it will be, women, single parents, minorities, and LGBT, the older population skews more white and less liberal in their social views and voting patterns. 5,4,3,2 their time is up. It's a song by Jade from the nineties.
Yes. I do think old males are the problem. Yes. Definitely. Older (white)males are more conservative (vote republican-older black males and hispanic males are quite conservative socially but vote liberal)than my generation, Millennials, and vote to keep the power in the hands of the few. Younger white males and females vote more Democratic but not as much as minorities and single white mothers. They are a part of the solution. So are we, the minorities that get ignored and the women who are called screeching feminists. As a black woman here, i have been told by a fellow liberal to 'go watch real housewives of Atlanta', you know, the 'Black' real Housewives. I have also been told that Black Men leave their families and Black women have too many kids and don't know how to use birth control. The first post got deleted but you can find it in my thread in AA called 'you can say anything you want about black people and get way with it'. The second stood a jury and one of the jurors said i should refute it instead of alerting. An all black jury would have seen the racism in that post, but our jury thinks that kinda post belongs on a democratic site. See what i mean.
Older liberals have been waiting for a big block of liberals to come into the party and change the game. We have arrived. And we do not feel wanted and are concerned by the shutting down of conversation about the issues that matter to us in favor of all day every day Obama criticism. The new big block of voters consist of democrats who like the President and are democrats because of him. So am I. I was not even interested until him because i knew my vote did not count for shit in America. Maybe it still doesn't unless i vote for who the 'real' democrats choose. Or i bash Obama.
Now, you have the right to criticize all day every day if you want to, but it's getting quite difficult to tell the difference between an angry old liberal and an angry old republican. You all sound just alike and i read talking points on Red State and them come to DU and read the same thing here. Cannot tell y'all apart by your words, the only difference i can see is the D.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)so I guess you are the winner.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I feel the same way every time a member posts black on black crime stats and black on white crime stats without even thinking about posting the white on white stats or the white on black stats. And when i was called the worst racist on DU in a pm. And the Asian privilege thread. And the he's not white he's half asian thing. And when a poster used the n word and i asked him what it meant and i got alerted on. The gefilte fish post. The chicken threads. The piece of shit thing, turds and shit is a term used by racists to denigrate blacks, i know that for sure, i went to a majority white HS for three years and i got called that in gym class by a neonazi kid everyday until i snapped on him. Poor guy will probably have breathing problems for ever. Yes. I feel like a winner.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Since the jury thinks what you are saying is okay, then fine....you win.
I have just never seen it happen here. It's a shame, really.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Really. I am not trying to pick on older people, i hope to be one eventually science and my health permitting.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)This is getting interesting.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)How about i just link to a few threads?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=7000
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=6860
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=5083
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=4996
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)there is so much ugly in this thread.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)And then they should read it again.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If i can handle the way the black community gets trashed by America, i think they are strong enough to read it and if it doesn't apply let it fly. I deal with hearing black youth horror stories and hearing white politicians look down on our communities since birth and i have survived and i thrive.
It is painful for me and may be painful for you to read, but this is how a young black woman with a bit of intelligence see's the political landscape of our time.
When we speak out people get upset at our words and their guilty feelings and refuse to see the truth in our statements. We get ignored, told to pipe down, and are redirected to issues that are not the issues that we want to work on. What we say does not count, it gets us rejected and shut down.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)When you make such claims you have a responsibility to follow through with sources.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)In AA there are threads galore about the issues colored folks have on DU. I wrote one myself titled ' you can say anything to black people and get away with it.'
LiberalStalwart wrote one recently.
There is also one titled ' Racism, alive and well in the democratic party'
We also have a running list of racist things said to us by fellow duers.
You should go and take a gander at the threads and read a bit and let me know if you want to discuss any of it.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Most here don't realize that we exist in a forum. That's where we go when we want to post interesting articles or just vent or get support when we get hurt.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)This thread, on seniors and the Democratic Party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x261440
Which references a prior thread that is also worth reading on the seniors/DU issue. Just some background.
TO THE JURY: It is not against the TOS to refer to prior threads. The admin facilitate this by providing a very handy advanced search function.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I have a clearer picture of this whole thing now.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Google my username and "Black Agenda Report." "Cornel West" "Tavis Smiley" and the relevant usernames and you will see some interesting threads.
To The Jury....it is not against the TOS to refer to prior threads...the admin provides advanced search for just that function.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I hate the BAR. I really do. And Cornell West is never coming to my inaguration when i get elected to high office. That type of thing really bothers him. I'll invite my driver and all of the hotel staff and leave him crying in the lobby. Then he and Tavis Smiley can make money trashing me all over america. Just like they do to Obama since he never invited Cornell West to something or other and now run around trash talking him. What a waste.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I only know because I wonder into the Asian Group often because it's the closest thing (besides Americans Abroad) that I identify with given I live in Asia.
That's kind of one of the things about DU that disappoints me at times, that there aren't many groups that are interesting to me.
BTW I grew up in a small town in Oregon (wasn't born there) in the 80's and saw how nasty people were toward minorities, AA in general.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I lived in a small town too once. Think it almost has 3000 people now. Terrible exoerience for me as a child, but when i went back i at least still had my mexican friends there and could at least find a place to fit in. Knowing spanish and having a hispanic surname saved me from being ostrasized, but they still have a certain attitude towards us.
I haven't been over to the Asian group yet, maybe one day i'll stop by and take a look. I wonder if we have a Hispanic forum.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)I have no clue as to the ages of the people that do, yet it happens daily.
As bravenak said, go read AA. Sadly you did not even know what that was. The small African American community that we have left on DU. It is their forum.
I am white and I am female and I sadly, I have to say a senior of sorts, yet I don't feel old. I can still kick ass and run around most of my younger coworkers.
Please go read the posts there. You will understand much if you do.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)It is not racism that I did not know that forum is there. It is because I don't think of things that way.
The people saying those things should be handled promptly by a jury.
I don't know who here is white or black. I was really surprised to see the anger toward old white men, and also the slams by two people about the old people here holding back progress.
It should be their forum. Like the Barack Obama forum should belong to those who post there. There should be no room for attacks like that in either forum.
I do not think that the elderly should be attacked though, it doesn't make good sense.
I have not done a search of the forums, only when I am looking for a particular one. It has nothing to do with age or race...
I am sorry some make those attacks. I never have and I never will. It's wrong.
But attacking the elderly because they are old and saying they are in the way of progress is wrong as well.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)As for the elderly, I don't really see it that way and I am just over 60. Our party is for all age groups and our youth are so very important for our future. IMHO it was not an attack yet a call for our youth to come together. They are our future madfloridian. They are not shoving us aside, they are taking up the mantle to continue the fight.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I have never put down youth, so I don't know where the heck that is coming from.
If that is the future of the party, that seniors are said to be holding us back....then count me out.
When the jury flat out says that old white men are holding back progress, and it is said at a Democratic forum where many of the old white men are very liberal...then there are problems.
If they believe this forum is too "old" for them, they can always start up their own.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)Seniors and I am one, are not being put down here or out to pasture so to speak. Our youth are still learning from us, yet soon it will be time to pass the mantle. They have an amazingly strong voice and they will be heard, they learned a lot from us after all. The fight has been going on forever. It will continue until it is done.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Those amazingly strong voices in this thread are not showing desire to learn from us, they are wanting to put us out to pasture.
It's like walking on eggshells around here. This is the first thread though in which I have encountered prejudice toward old people here at DU. I think you need to reread some of the comments.
Lately I have been accused of being racist, right wing, and hating Obama. None of those things are true.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I am white, I am male and I am "old", over 60, but I did not get the impression that the younger posters were bashing me, nor did I see anything that suggested the wanted to put us all out to pasture and take over. Seems to me that some of the posters on this thread are lacking in reading skills and shouldn't read things into comments that are not there.
I want to see the younger generations get involved, and I think they see things from a different prospective. I also agree with them that bashing the president daily, as some here tend to do, isn't helping to get younger and minorities involved in the party. My son is only 20 and my daughter will be 23 in October. I love to here their view on things, even if I don't agree on everything they may say, we can at least talk about the problems we have in this country and find common ground. An example is infrastructure, my son and I both agree we need to invest in fixing it and in moving forward like Europe has been doing for ages. We have to keep he young involved, and listen to their ideas.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,733 posts)And I'm delighted to see young Democrats who are passionate about politics!
certainot
(9,090 posts)the racism is there and always will be but using it for political purposes, whether it's about the brown hordes coming across the border or some obscure news item chosen by a $200,000 a year high IQ sociopath working in a think tank, we're fucked until thinking americans figure out democracy, which can actually fix this, can't work as long as there are 1200 radio stations reaching 50 mil a week with think tank scripted lies all day long.
they put carnival barkers on every corner and stump in the country with GOP KKK-lite and until americans get that figured out and respond, we're fucked.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Well, they are, hmmm how should i put this, not the demographic that is interested in a more liberal society. They are clowns and the only people who do not know it are the listeners. They are not increasing their audience, their audience is dying off. The big influx of new voters in this country are the hispanic/minority voters and young voters and screaming about brown hordes coming across the border is not going to get much play.
It's actually hurting their cause so i don't mind them so much, because they are reaching to their own choir and letting us listen in to their death rattle. I give it about five years until the hosts start dying off and are replaced by Tejano music stations and 70's music. Really. It's just about over.
The GOP died with Reagan. The just didn't know it yet so they had a Tea Party.
certainot
(9,090 posts)those motherfuckers already cost us 20 years.
that's why we'll spend valuable time on bergdahl
because the left ignored them those radio stations got us into afghanistan and iraq and almost iran, gave us bush thomas alito roberts, one shitload of deregulation, tax breaks for billionaires, and a reagan-was-god history rewrite that may actually hold!
it made the difference the last 25 years and the bergdahl buzzgasm proves it's still going strong- that's what every local and national talk radio blowhard has been pushing the last week- and it always works because the left would rather listen to a scratched barry manilow cd from under the seat than be aware of what's dominating messaging in the US.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I just cracked up for a cool minute!
You're right, i do listen to it everyday, i can't help myself. There was a dude on last week blaming the Africans for slavery and blamed JayZ for everything else. It just sounds so stupid i can't believe anyone with a brain could get into it without approaching it like a comedy act.
But the listeners are the same people who were listening 25 year ago. My stepdad started when Rush first got started and he's been dead for years. Suicide. I really do sort of blame talk Radio and the OJ trial a bit. It drove him mad.
Those people are in their seventies now and with voter ID the republicans are thinning their own herd while they thin ours and we have more voters turning 18 every day so the pendulum has swung left and the nation is playing catch up. Next presidential election will be the one where republicans show fear and start scrambling for fresh voters. It wont work because they hate everybody that does not look like them. We may have lost twenty years to their bullshit, but they lost the future with their hate and xenophobia. The Tea party dug their grave.
certainot
(9,090 posts)the antarctic.
the problem is still this: in most parts of the US there are no free alternatives for political talk while driving or working. so even if their main demographic is considered to be old white men, it's on in the background everywhere, repeating and repeating, coordinated and loud, and for a lot of people those stations are often the only sources for current events before going home to tell the family and friends. and many of those stations are the loudest in their states, working hard for the koch think tanks leading up to elections, and may be the only sources in emergencies.
certainot
(9,090 posts)politicizing racializing spinning and blowing up otherwise 'mundane' events.
with my conspiracy mindedness i even entertained the notion OJ was set up exactly for that purpose. i forgot what the other more important events were at the time, that it was distracting from.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I see the same problem here in Korea. The older generation is very conservative and stern. Generally Korea has become much more multicultural then it was when I got here 10 years ago. I am not a permanent resident and can vote in local elections and I support the same causes whether it is in the US or Korea. I spent the week before the election prodding my students about voting as many of them are voting for the first time.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We are seeing a backlash against conservative policies now thankfully. They just don't work for everyone ( except the rich) and are not in the best interest of my family.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of older white male Democrats and liberals, but they are definitely a minority if you look at the aggregate.
In contrast, the younger generations-which are also more diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, family structure, and social status than the older generations-are much more Democratic and liberal.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)That doesn't sound very open-minded to me.
I am older, and I have been under the gun for griping about Obama's attacks on public education, and his tendency to want to cut Social Security while calling it something else.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)But you knew that.
I'm just an old white guy. I must be a racist conservative, lol.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Wow - ageism on DU. I thought the folks here were above such crap.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Okayyy
I am not a man, but I am white, and I guess I am old. Wonder if old white women stand in the way of progress as well???
Inquiring minds.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Tisk, tisk, tisk!
I was typing up a detailed answer to your inquiry and i took my time a bit so that you would get to see the world from my pov. Patience is a virtue. I have lots.
Can i see it then since you did the do? The results of the alert?
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Never mind. Thanks anyway.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)So that tells me a lot right there.
May you live a long healthy life, because the other choices are grim.
randys1
(16,286 posts)wow, i have too many jury issues so I wont say anymore
it is getting to the point here where I have to self censor myself so much that I dont think I can say anything anymore
i would want to say that privileged white people seem to have privilege here as well
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I am not sure what is going on here, but I know I post stuff that is clean of those issues.
I did get upset at some of the attacks on the old people at DU.
Read post #41, #26, #94
I do not post about stuff like this usually, and I avoid the threads. But the topic of not wanting the older people here at DU was way way out of line....so I got involved.
Now I am seeing a side of DU I never took part in and did not know existed.
But damn, I am painted with the same brush as anyone who ever did post stuff like that.
We are all individuals regardless of skin color. That works more than one way.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I meant to post these last night.
Well, you seem to be quite prejudiced against old people. The jury agrees with you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5060650
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Accusing a DUer of prejudice where none was intended. and that 'may you live a long life' is a veiled insult.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 7, 2014, 06:29 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: meh
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: These unnecessary alerts are tiresome.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)On Sat Jun 7, 2014, 06:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Well, you seem to be quite prejudiced against old people. The jury agrees with you. http://www.democraticundergroun…
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Accusing a DUer of prejudice where none was intended. and that 'may you live a long life' is a veiled insult.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 7, 2014, 06:29 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: meh Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: These unnecessary alerts are tiresome.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
I am dismayed by the ever increasing divisiveness and derision on this forum, especially when one of our most admirable activists (you, mad) is a target. (I'm so grateful for your continued participation on this site.)
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I remember thinking something quite similar 45 year ago.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)There will no longer be an America that is a white majority nation. I was born at the perfect time to see this nation finally become a majority minority nation. Demographic do not lie, they tell the tale of what is to come. We need to build on what we have now and make it better for those that will come behind us. There will be no conservative revolution coming to save the republican party from being relegated to the dustbin of history. No southern strategy will increase their numbers, no Reagan democrats to vote against their own interests to harm 'Welfare Queens' that never existed, a 'white hands' ad will not get them votes, and screaming about 'Crack baby future Criminals in training' will make them look like the racist assholes they are.
There's a political storm a brewing, and every year more democrats are born, the middle class has shrunk, and we do not realize yet that we have hit rock bottom. If you fear that a majority minority nation will allow some old white billionaires to keep all of the power and continue to disenfranchise brown people, i hope you live long enough to see that your 'Dream of Spring' come to fruition. Please, stay healthy, stay alive, because we are going to rock their world in about ten sweet years, when my kids are grown and half the nation is brown. You will be overjoyed.
And once we have the power, we will vote ourselves and you a right good part of that wall-street money to pay ourselves back for the Great Financial Catastrophe they caused. And the republicans will go the way of the whigs and a new left will be born. I have great intuition for things and you guys just did not have the numbers to do what you wanted to do. You needed us to be born and grow up. And here we are. And there are a whole lot of Millennials, and we are procreating like crazy.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I will not be around in 45 years unless I live to be 112, which is doubtful. I think most of us old fogies here, of whatever race or gender, had high hopes that we could change the world when we were bright-eyed, idealistic youngsters ("We can change the world, it's dying to get better" , and we had just as much disdain for our elders. (Famously, "don't trust anyone over 30."
Somehow we were derailed. Human nature being what it is (again, regardless of race or gender), you may be derailed, too. For your sake and the sake of my children and grandchildren, I hope not, but, again, I don't have much faith that an American Utopia will become a reality. I've got to admire your optimism, though.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I really believe that now that everyone is getting screwed, and the pain is so widespread, we can change the game. Gotta hit rock bottom before we can brush ourselves off and move forward. Poverty is the great equalizer and we are getting poorer and and more pissed. Either they let us make a decent living or i think head are going to roll. Rich heads in particular. Are the rich are afraid. They should be.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)and I'm right here with you. We live in interesting times. The seriousness of economic matters, the critical importance in reducing inequality and redistributing wealth back to those who deserve it and actually work hard every day and deserve to afford a home and good health care, demands that we all look ourselves in the mirror and consider our words carefully. We've got to significantly raise taxes on the rich, in my opinion. Bring them back to levels over 50% of their income. Raise capital gains taxes over 40%. Remove all corporate tax loopholes. Demand they pay their share. I know for me, I don't sit back and let it slide in real life when I hear self-described leftists whine and moan about the President or the Democratic Party. I basically tell them that I believe in leftist principals and that requires at minimum voting for the most progressive people on the ballot in every election, and also doing what one can to reject overly corporate machinations. For example, that can be as simple as getting rid of corporate credit cards or taking your money out of a megabank and putting into a local bank or better yet a credit union.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)...stay in control.
I refuse to give unquestioning uncritical support to any politician or party whose actions help to further embed the forces of economic oppression and who allow the Corporate Dictates determine their political actions. I don't care what color, race, ethnic background, gender or sexual orientation those politicians might have. When they do things that are wrong we should call them on it.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)don't hear your whining and moaning.
People who may or may not vote for progressives do.
I'm not saying don't whine and moan occasionally. We probably share many of the same frustrations. What I'm saying is that folks who hear what you say in real life, and to a probably smaller extent read what one posts on a message board - many of them are undecided about whether to get up off their butts to vote.
You can do what you want. Me personally, I try and be very positive around others who may be listening to me or reading what I write - and try and encourage them to vote for the most progressive possible candidates on every ballot in local, state and federal elections.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)are disappointed and frustrated at Obama and the Democratic leaders, but they basically support them. And they sure as hell don't want the GOP to take over, so they'll do what is necessary to work for Democrats.
And in real life when the subject of politics arises with people who are either conservative anti-Obama or fence sitters, I generally speak favorably and do a sales for Democrats and liberalism despite my pissed offedness at them.
What I most objected to in your post is the characterizing of criticism as "whining and moaning."
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I'm sorry I used that characterization. Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)What is most likely to happen in the decades ahead is that differences of class, race and sexual identity will become less important, as part of the momentum that is continually occurring.
People of all ethnic origins -- or their kids -- will blend into the "melting pot" just as has already happened. The majority of kids of parents who identify with an ethnic group will identify less with that group than their parents did, and will instead will become culturally assimilated. Just as at one time, if you were Irish you were considers a despised minority. Nowadays, except for St. Patricks Day, and a certain natural pride of heritage, Irish is the same as American.
So the distinctions you make are less important to the advancement of true economic and social progress than issues of moral values, ethics, economic polices, tolerance of diversity and the basic functioning of Democracy than your demographic divisiveness.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Social liberalism, while unquestionably a positive move when it comes to cultural issues, does little to challenge the economic status quo and entrenched power. That's why it's actually relatively easy to do. Our Owner Class Overlords couldn't care less if the proles get gay married - cultural fights are simply useful to them as wedge issues to induce certain members of the population to vote against their own economic interests, but that's all it is to them.
Challenge the actual structure of power, and the iron fist shows up. Just ask Occupy.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Or perhaps could be liberal, I noticed that a young person here did not see economic liberalism as an important factor, blaming our problems on Reagan and the elder generation while failing to see how his economic policies had been absorbed by the portion of the party that person was holding up as liberal.
It occurred to me that a younger person may not even realize that there are (or were) liberal economic policies as well as social ones.
I tried education, but do not know if it will be understood or researched by that person.
Also:
__ __
[font color="red"]__ __[/font]
__ __
__ __
_____
__ __
Six in the fifth place
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)on social issues as long as they keep a tight grip on economic issues, which is what is important to them. In fact, even in the Republican Party the big boys don't really care about social issues either but they exploit those issues just for the votes of social conservatives.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We are already critical of all that; but "after (you) 'old white guys' are gone", we will have one less struggle ... we could concentrate all of our efforts on the "entrenched Oligarchy and Monopoly Capitalism"; rather than struggling against those on the left that support a racial/gender/LGBTQ status quo, that would still have us behind ... once we conquer the "entrenched Oligarchy and Monopoly Capitalism."
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't know many people who have basically progressive leanings who support a "racial/gender/LGTB status quo."
Priorities of individuals may differ, as do ways that one believes are best ways to make progress, but it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)You're right, they don't really exist. But many people who support the status quo claim to be progressive and/or Democrats.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Those that argue, "it's all about classism" with a side of "individual freedom", as the prime example.
That is NOT" a mere matter of priorities.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)I responded to that very subject. Rec's~
and you said...
snip
We have been seeing a bit of a xenophobic attitude lately, a coldness towards AA's, some homophobia and a nice tasty dash of sexism to round out the course.
Yes indeed we are his base, and we are pretty damn strong. Yet there seems to be a huge problem here. We are being told to sit down and shut up! I agree it stems from white males. Sadly that is the GOP handbook when dealing with minorities. Gawd knows they hate women and gays and wish to suppress AA. We are better than that our party is better than that. I believe we have disrupters.
This is not what the Democratic party is all about.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I see more republican talking points here than i see at politico, and you know they love them some GOP.
Sigh.
We will get this straight, i am sure of it. After this next midterms goes to shit, then we will start thinking about supporting Democrats instead of trashing them. And some accounts will go into hibernation for a year or so until it's time to disrupt again.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)And I've put my money where my mouth is on these subjects here numerous times.
We have a preponderance of posters here who think that being liberal means something about "protecting individual freedoms"--that's conservative libertarianism talking. Liberalism is about our collective societal well-being; it's about the ways we attempt to make our government work for the greatest social good--not our personal ability to smoke a joint in public. If you want to talk about the drug laws that for decades and decades have imprisoned young black males disproportionately and ruined lives, I'm with you. But I don't really give a rat's ass (one way or another) about your "individual right" to smoke dope. There are collective rights—like fairness in housing and education—that are critical to a great number of people in this country. And if we want a civil and safe society, yes, we need gun control laws. Your "individual rights" do not trump the common good.
And then we have the group suddenly obsessed with jobs and the economy and income inequality, as if these problems started yesterday. They're suddenly obsessed because for the first time (since the Great Depression) white males have been feeling the pinch. They weren't complaining over the last decades about the income inequality that has existed for women and African Americans and Hispanics since ... forever. And they still don't get it. Because it's only all about them. That's not liberal.
And yes, there's the sexism and xenophobia in spades (women and people from elsewhere are threatening to the white male status; these groups get something, it must be taking away something from them). There are the tough guys, whose only interest is seeing politicians and bankers put in prison (they don't want to figure out the complex legal niceties, they just know somehow these buggers need to be put away, and then everything will right itself). And they always want someone who will "FIGHT." They like fighting and revenge a lot. They like tough. Ooga booga. And they're always disappointed, because our elected officials don't fight enough, and aren't tough enough. How about wishing they could "think" enough.
Sometimes I don't know why I'm here. I'm far from perfect, but I at least try to think ... and not just of protecting my own interests and turf.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I cannot disagree with anything you said.
And the joint thing. Yes! I do not care if you want to smoke drugs i care about the sentence disparities. Yes we need to work on drug policy and lower prison times for non violent offenders, but i also don't want dealers hanging outside my home or anywhere really. There has to be another way to do this without just letting people sell drugs in parks and shoot each other over territory.
Put the money we save by not giving out 25 year sentences into rehabilitation and sober living, cheaper and more effective. Put the dealers into workforce development and trade technical schools and train them in good paying jobs, they do it for the money not for the status. And Jr college should be free up to an AA degree and trade school as well. Save money by training our offenders and making them into tax payers, and prevent more dealers by educating them in fields where they can earn a decent living. They can do Caltrans as punishment and pay a fine as long as no violence is involved. I think that is a better plan than 'Just Legalize all Drugs'.
On gun control. Yes.
You are spot on with the sudden noticing of income inequality. They only want to discuss class disparity, not gender or race inequality. And everything else you said in the last two paragraphs. Yes to all that to, i agree.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)as opposed to gender and race inequality. The populist anger at wealth is not an end in itself: the focus should be on specific policy across many areas that can bring increased equality for traditionally disenfranchised groups. The whole populist thing feels like just another angry white male thing to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's how it comes across.
Number23
(24,544 posts)because it "disenfranchises black people", but who have NARY A WORD to be said about the million billion other ways that black people are disenfranchised on a daily basis. Actually, black people all over the Internet laugh at folks like that. God, they are obvious. And pathetic.
And yes, there's the sexism and xenophobia in spades (women and people from elsewhere are threatening to the white male status; these groups get something, it must be taking away something from them).
And it's always the "feet to the fire" crew that engage in these behaviors. The ones that never have a decent thing to say about this president or Democrats in general are always the ones downplaying women's issues and telling everyone not American or IN America to shut up (unless they agree with their constant criticism, of course). It's so transparent and so obvious.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)As I see it, the stuff your describing is elitist balderdash. Not seeing the forest from the trees. Narcissistic whining over some single issue not relating economic needs. On a more optimistic note, youth is where it's at. I'm delighted so many here are posting that younger people are going to skew more progressive. That's the future, and I look forward to it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)all of that!
{But you'll probably lose you card on that one.}
greatauntoftriplets
(175,733 posts) YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Well said, and thank you.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)
Thank you.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)get recs??
Now, if anyone is actually surprised about that sentiment PM me because I've got a bridge to sell. The ONLY thing that shocks me is that someone here actually fucking ADMITTED what every single person here sees EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I have read too many times here that we need to try to reach out to... Drumroll please...... WHITE MEN! Not our base, and our voters, but we need to reach out to old white males and not say stuff that might make them anxious. Why? Because the board is full of them and some of them think that the nation is not paying attention to their problems.
We've all seen them. And the folks that say this type of idiocy are the same ones that scream and bray like mules when someone (correctly) compares them to the Tea Party.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It was good and terrible, waxing nostalgic and vague. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5056192
I found myself baffled by the whole thing and i have no idea what it was really about to be sure.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
But 1SBM's response was golden.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It was nice to see somebody admit to what their motives were. I enjoyed SheShe's response immensely.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Some (as in this thread) are doing it completely unintentionally by revealing what (and who) they think is and is not important.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You know what? The responses i have gotten lately have surprised me quite a bit, i really don't think anything i have said is controversial or not common knowledge. I mean, if i say the words white people together in a sentence i seem to get angry responses from the same people who never get upset when someone makes generalized statements about black people. I have really been finding that strange and a bit amusing. Imagine if those same folks were Black and had to hear the shit we hear all the time about Black people. Good god, the crying that would ensue would make enough tears to fill the Grand Canyon. Do they not realize that we go through hearing whats wrong with Black families, and Black youth, and black fathers, and black crime?
I think i need to write an article a week on White crime and White failings just to ease them into everyone else's reality. Help the more sensitive ones develop my Rhinoceros skin.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Black people have been making these comments for DECADES. Which makes the responses you get all the more hysterical from this "worldly" group of "liberals."
I am so sorry that you had to endure them. This place is a lost cause. We need to look elsewhere.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Obama's issues have ZERO to do with what race/gender I, or anyone, happen to be. They are HIS issues.
They have to do with continued war, drone strikes, suppression of whistle-blowers, Gitmo, mass (likely unconstitutional) surveillance, protection of war criminals from justice, billions to bankers and MIC while the general citizen falls further and further behind. WTF does someone's race and gender have one fucking iota to do with those things!
Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #220)
Post removed
Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #220)
Post removed
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)226. By the fucking way....
View profile
Older white men are not fucking victims in our society.
We are ALL, the whole fucking world, victims of continued wars, mass surveillance, and the expansion of capitalist empire.
By the way, your post comes off as very racist.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Those same people you call victims vote for those wars, and love the shit out of capatalism. Take a look at the Tea Party, what do you see? Those VICTIMS astroturfing for corporations and voting in politicians who hate Black people, call hispanics wetbacks, want to limit womens rights and hate immigrants. They are NOT victims.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)228. Bullshit. Our society caters to the older white male.
Those same people you call victims vote for those wars, and love the shit out of capatalism. Take a look at the Tea Party, what do you see? Those VICTIMS astroturfing for corporations and voting in politicians who hate Black people, call hispanics wetbacks, want to limit womens rights and hate immigrants. They are NOT victims.
I happen to be an older white male and I think there are numerous other older white males to be found on an off of this board who have never in their lives done any of what you claim above.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Carry on.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)understand the meaning of this reply. Can you clarify? All men thing?
234. So this is the not all men thing?
View profile
Carry on.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the defense the dominant group individuals use to ignore what the dominant group as a class do/has done. E.g., "Yes, I know that men are capable of rape; but I've never raped, so women (and men that understand) shouldn't talk about the rape culture."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you are victims ... just not the victims of, and in some cases are supportive of, the concerns of the most reliable segment of the Democratic base.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I could be called middle aged white man, even though I do not think I am that old yet. I have been against income inequality and Marxist leaning since the Clinton days. The 99 crash showed me the extent of Corporate corruption and theft of middle class savings by the 1% class without repercussions. Could I have learned the same lesson in the savings and loan crisis of the 80s? Sure, if I had been old enough to understand at the time. I was not.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That your ignoring 2/3 of her post speaks volumes in proving her point.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)what 2/3 I am ignoring?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)P1 - libertarianism vs collective rights. I am a Socialist, collective rights trump individual rights.
P2 - Sudden economic obsession. This I addressed specifically with my post.
P3 -3rd way, "forward" looking bs. Criminals and those who have done wrong need to pay the price. No dancing around trying to be nice and PC. Bankers and war criminals need to be held accountable.
Ok, addressed all 3 paragraphs specifically for you.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)But then again, I've been reading your diatribe ever since you got here so it shouldn't surprise me. Please, do carry on with your hatefest of all things white and all things "old." I'm intrigued. Well, not really, I can read the same shit on any hate site, just substitute minority/women with old and white and it's the same scapegoating.
You're young. Maybe you'll wise up, maybe you won't. It's entirely up to you.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Poll after poll on DU has shown that people here are overwhelmingly white and older.
If you look at the actual makeup of the Democratic Party, there are a large percentage of minorities, women and young people.
On a percentage basis, there are very few African American posters on DU. But if you look at real life, blacks make up a pretty sizable portion of the party and also tend to turn out more on election day.
Nope. Not bullshit at all.
But enjoy your bubble.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)I didn't say a thing about being representative of the Democratic Party.
Yeah, my bubble.
Full of people who have been right about pretty much everything.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I didn't say a thing about being representative of the Democratic Party.
Yeah, my bubble.
Full of people who have been right about pretty much everything.
You're essentially residing in a bubble made up of older white people are then you proceed to lecture others about what it means to be a Dem and how you're "right about pretty much everything".
It's really quite pathetic.
You were responding to bravenak and you totally missed her point.
DU is indeed a bubble if you look at the facts.
This place is overwhelmingly white and older. It does not represent the Democratic Party as a whole and the numbers bare that out. You may think it does, but it doesn't.
Haven't you wondered why, relatively speaking, there are so few African Americans posting on DU even though African Americans make up a sizable portion of the party and are more motivated to vote than others?
Enjoy your bubble.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)What the hell is your point? There's all kinds of BS in that post besides maybe DU skews older and white.
Nothing pathetic about being right.
And don't tell me what I think.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Or that he doesn't fight the right wingers enough. Because that's the only two complaints I see at DU.
And stop reading right-wing boards.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)If someone wants to praise Obama, they are free to do so. No one is stopping them.
babylonsister
(171,059 posts)should be. But it's not always...this post was in response to this one...
\
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025055646
Sigh, and hi! I hope all is well in your world.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)you're allowed to put up a post praising something he did, with the postscript that see? you don't hate the President and you voted for him twice.
Anything else makes you a fanboi/grrl or something.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Imagine if NASA had launched Alan Sheppard into space, and then said, OK, that's enough, everyone relax. Or if Kennedy had never made the Moon the priority. We finished up Mercury, and we just quit. We stopped there, and never continued on to the Moon.
I feel like we're in the days of Mercury. We're doing some good things, but we can do much better. I want the grand dreams, I want the goal that seems impossible. We are doing good with Mercury, but we can go farther, we can do more. We can go into Gemini. We can go for Apollo. While NASA was pounding each other on the back when Alan Sheppard stepped onto the Carrier after his first flight to the edge of space, they were not resting, they were already planning Gus Grissom's flight, and all the other flights of the Mercury era.
When you achieve something great, it can be the end of a journey, or the beginning of the next journey. NASA didn't end with Apollo when the Apollo 17 capsule splashed down. They did skylab. They did the shuttle. They designed things that are still working today despite all odds to the contrary. Voyager I and II are still moving out of the solar system, the fastest man made objects ever. Because we didn't stand still and quit when it looked like we had accomplished something. There was more to discover, more to do.
Yes Praise the President for his accomplishments by all means. But we shouldn't stop there and say well, we've done enough, time to coast. We should be moving forward, and we should be looking for the next accomplishment, the next challenge. When you stop reaching for the stars, you will never reach the stars. When you stop dreaming of a better world, the world will never get better.
What I take issue with is the Government. The President is the Chief Executive, and directs the general policy and general direction of the Government. Either the DEA is doing what the President believes they should by harassing Marijuana users, or they are not in compliance, and someone who is in charge should be fired. Either the NSA/FBI/CIA/DHS is doing what President Obama wants, or they are not. Again, if they are not, someone should be fired. Yes, he's done some good things, but he only has eight years maximum to accomplish as must as possible. Every day, every single day you have to hit the ground running and striving for more. You have to wake up and know that today, you are going to do everything possible to make this nation, this world, a better place. You are going to keep from making the mistakes of the past, and you are going to end that run knowing you did everything possible and walking from that office with no regrets.
I think in about five years, when we sit down and read our new copies of the President's thoughts on the time he had in the Oval Office, we'll be reading lots of regrets. I think he will blame Congress, and they should get some blame. But the way the Government operates is up to him, and those they appoint.
A friend asked me not too long ago what I would do if I was the President, on the first day. I told him I'd wear out several pens signing pardons for all the people convicted of marijuana in federal courts. The President has that power, and has used it sparingly. Why? Because he doesn't think that people should be pardoned? Or is it because he's afraid of what the Republicans will say about it. Let them try and impeach him for using the power that the Constitution has granted him. He's already polling below 50% on approval, he might as well do what is right, because being careful not to offend is getting him, and us, nowhere.
So yes, I admire and appreciate what the President has done. But I'm like Janet Jackson, what have you done for me lately? I want more, and next week I'm going to want even more. Because there is a lot yet to be done, and Alan Sheppard was only the beginning.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That is simply scapegoating problems on the enemy Other. It is an illusion. Of course the GOP is a massive problem in this nation. But they are not solely responsible for all of the issues.
I rewarded President Obama's work by voting for him. That is the reward system for an elected official. I do not cheerlead for him. And I will criticize his administration whenever I deem it necessary and just, and not worry about whether my criticism makes him feel bad or makes you feel bad.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)politics involves an opposition and requires pragmatism.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)You don't stop the support when you leave the voting booth. You do not just walk away.
The GOP is at fault during this Presidents term and much lays heavily on there shoulders.
Whine of the Day, from Mitch McConnell
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/96591/mcconnell-villain-who-me
As for your prom date quip! That is sexist.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You have already lost because those are things which quite literally go without saying.
Shemp Howard
(889 posts)Rock on, Gravitycollapse. Elected officials will always do better when we treat them as, well, elected officials, and not as objects of affection.
When it comes to Obama (or any politician), I'm not that interested in soaring quotes, or stories about what a wonderful human being we have here. Cults of personality are always dangerous!
It's just like when I hire a plumber. I know there are obstacles in the job. But given the obstacles, I want results.
With Obama, it's been a mixed bag. The ACA was a noble attempt, and it might yet work out well. But I'm not seeing much upward mobility in the working class.
Who knows how things would have turned out had we praised the Democratic leadership less, and demanded more. Remember, for two years we had the Presidency, and the House, and a filibuster-proof Senate.
Yep, I'm a dreamer.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)
I first shared this information in October, 2010 in a post I called “Occupy the Media” (no longer available) then later in a post entitled President Obama DID NOT Control Congress for Two Years.
Without fail, everyday I am either challenged or questioned about the information I presented. So in an attempt to further clarify the information and hopefully address the many questions, I am presenting it once again. More importantly, commenters, journalists, reporters, political pundits, Republicans and even some Democrats continue to repeat the same falsehood:
“The president controlled Congress for two years, and had the opportunity to do everything he wanted to do.”
The statement simply isn’t true.
How did so many people get this so wrong?
I’m guessing that after the election, the media made such a big deal of the fact that Democrats had captured the majority in the Senate (obviously referring to a 51+ majority), I think people became confused. Just as many things changed once Barack Obama became elected, the “new filibuster-proof majority” totaled 60 and somehow, the fact Democrats only captured 59 seats got lost in all the excitement.
Everyone also apparently forgot that Ted Kennedy Collapsed At The Obama Inaugural Luncheon and returned to his home in Massachusetts to recuperate. While the Minnesota seat remained outstanding, because the election results were contested.
Oh Please Read More: http://www.winningprogressive.org/democrats-had-a-filibuster-proof-senate-majority-for-72-days-during-president-obamas-first-term
Facts are your friend Shemp.
As for...
Nice prom reference...WOW!
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)And have decided that what I said was not meant at all to be sexist but could be construed to be that way especially by someone like you who has demonstrated more than once in this thread that false accusations of racism and sexism are not below you. So let me reword my point so you get it...
President Obama is not your buddy. He isn't your friend or pal. The relationship you possess with him is not similar in any regard to someone you are nice to uncritically.
He is an elected official and should be treated as such.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)There never was two MONTH, let alone, two years that Democrats had the Presidency, and the House, and a filibuster-proof Senate.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)They're both Turd Way Dems, but the swooning Tiger Beat posts will hopefully go away.
First family has beautiful smiles.
Presidential Hugs and Selfies for Breakfast in Chicago (Don't Tell Michelle!)
Prez: . . . I look like Morgan Freeman.
Michelle Obama: Watch out, because Malia's learning to drive!
A young girl hands the President a US flag
Prez surprises (delights) kids at WH talent show
Yipes
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Fortunately, that creepy adoration is restricted to a small proportion of party and DU members.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)Not true. There is plenty of support for the president at DU. And there are plenty of comments that do not involve bashing the president.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)when he does something I disagree with, no praise.
Duh.
RKP5637
(67,107 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and fewer things that deserve criticism.
think
(11,641 posts)If a person deserves praise for doing the right thing it should be given.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-george-w-bushs-greatest-legacy--his-battle-against-aids/2012/07/26/gJQAumGKCX_story.html
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)For the creation of a marine preserve near Hawaii, iirc.
But W still rates as the all-time worst President ever in my books.
As to Obama, I think he gets 'underpraised' for the good things he does do, because many of the positive things are done 'under the radar', via executive orders and regulations that tend not to hit the media. His more problematic actions (which are all basically continuations or expansions of Republican policy, such as drones and domestic spying) lend themselves more to 'if it bleeds it leads' media attention.
So basically, I criticize admin policies that are too far to the right, or are the 'political sausage' of Dem left ideas and RW lunacy, and praise when we actually get unalloyed actual Dem policy. (Which, as noted above, basically has to be done by executive branch powers only, since anything legislative is going to include RW poison pills if it even passes at all.)
quinnox
(20,600 posts)
madamesilverspurs
(15,801 posts)in the first couple of years of Obama's presidency I posted the question:
When did "Yes We Can" become "Yes HE Can and Why Hasn't He?"
I got pummeled, there was mention of a pony, yada yada.
Maybe it's time to ask the question again, eh?
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Just as with any Democratic POLITICIAN.
When he does something non praiseworthy, like spying on us, no praise forthcoming.
Hope that clears it up for ya!
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)The supporters have not done him any favors with the tee-heeing and ROFL and snark and potty mouthing and orchestrated attacks on some members.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)It's not that I don't like the President. I don't like the never ending nasty whining snark that they consistently peddle.
And OP's like this are prime examples.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Others are free to agree or disagree with your praise.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)crying because someone dares to find fault with their idol
Tikki
(14,557 posts)Truth is we are observant here on DU.
Tikki
Skittles
(153,160 posts)just like presidents are wrong sometimes.......this is what sets critical thinkers apart from the Tiger Beat club
quinnox
(20,600 posts) Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)You might think it obvious, but apparently it is not.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Okay, maybe single-payer universal health coverage was a step too far. But why the hell did he have to negate the little compromise step of a public option? My God, that would have been popular if that had been sold for what it is -- a way that anyone has the option to get out from the thumb of Big Insurance by buying into Medicare at an earlier age ...Or stay with their insurers if they preferred.
Instead Obama took us a step in the wrong direction. He further embedded private insurance into the system. He did what Romney did and put in place a system that rewards the insurance companies and forces us to buy their still-crappy products whether we want to or not.
Sure it has some good things in it. But they don't compare to the damage that has been done to the effort to really reform the healthcare system. Gave a fresh coat of paint to a rotting house and said "Okay that fixes it. We don't need to change anything basic in the foundation."
Too many things like that on issues of importance for me to feel too enthusiastic, even though I like the guy.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)President promised a public option. Guess what, neither did Jimmy Carter or Clinton. The public option is available at the state level and it looks like Vermont or New Hampshire will be adopting it in the next couple of years. You can disagree with the ACA and disagree with Obama for pushing to pass it, but he gave us what he promised. He said he liked single payer but with the system we have now it was too much of a leap. Does it occur to anyone here that the public option candidate didn't get elected? That is what chaps my ass. A non-single payer candidate is the one who gets elected and everyone is pissed when he does what he said he would do (something Nixon, Carter and Clinton couldn't deliver?)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He said he supported healthcare reform and, in his frequent pattern allowed people to fill in the blanks. He did not say "I will bring you Romneycare in which you are forced to buy private insurance, but we're not really going to control the market or prices. We'll do a few things that allow more people to buy crappy insurance, but we're going yo continue to let tye insurance companies gouge you financially -- now we're going to force you to be gouged."
I'm not sure he would have done as well if he had run on things he has actually done, instead of the things he kinda hinted he might do.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)In fact it is well known that he campaigned several times on including a public option.
Lying about this is no way to promote anyone, I mean, if someone's supporter goes around lying about what he says I begin to wonder why lies are needed for said support and maybe such support is wrong.
Stick to the truth if you want to convince anyone of anything, it works better.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 7, 2014, 12:49 AM - Edit history (2)
"Well maybe not, because here on DU it is only Progressive to bash the President over the head day after day."
ignoring social issues. Issues related to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. don't exist as all of society's problems are due to class only. Anyone who mentions these issues is either trying to deflect, or is an "extremist". 
Never mind that folks are basically talking about issues that they relate to on a first-hand basis.
You can Google the thread, but there was one poster very recently who whined about BOG regulars supposedly never posting in any economic threads. However, I post and read sometimes on those threads. The threads from ProSense related to economic policy have been especially informative. I have also seen you, Cha, freshwest, stevenleser, and others being active in those type of threads. Yet some of the good news threads (and even threads where prominent progressives such as Warren and Sanders praise O) don't get nearly as much play around DU as the flame-baiting hair-on-fire threads about Obama being a centerrightmoderaterepublicanfascistselloutusedcarsellingauthoritarian. Nope.
Again, I almost forget sometimes that this is a site for Democrats, and I wonder if the TOS is still being enforced.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)sheshe2
(83,751 posts) 
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)You can't make other people be as effusive in their praise as you are unless you convince them. Telling them to shut up means your argument sucks.
UTUSN
(70,686 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Praise when it is due, condemn as needed.
This can't be repeated often enough.
NancyDL
(140 posts)It's "trending" to bash the President, but when I look at what he has accomplished in spite of the opposition of a united GOP and the half-hearted support of a Democratic Party that seemingly never heard of party discipline, I am amazed and grateful. This man's contributions to the people of the US and to mankind will not stop when he leaves office. In fact, he has just begun.
The "President bashing" among the progressives, i.e. Democrats, is a perfect example of why a handful of extreme right wingers, controlling the Grand Old Party from the rear, has gained the power to bring down the country. And their power will only increase as long as so many Dems continue to work for their rich donors instead of the people they represent.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I give Obama praise for not allowing the wild talking points to take this nation into every country who has a hiccup. He allows those nations to work on their issues without US military inference.
I like the fact he can be in the middle of a really big operation and yet remain cool and calm. He doesn't always run at the first hint of criticism and start whining a out how hard of a job he is doing.
I really have praise for at least beginning to get a health care plan for our citizens. It is long overdue. For those who may not have a preexisting condition, just wait around long enough and it will come.
At this point in time, I don't care a out his race or gender, through all of this he has been and I look forward to him continuing to be a great president. He has had lots of cleaning to do after the Bush years and his progress sure hasn't been handed to him. I have supported him in his election and will continue to support him. For the whiners, get over it, find the positive a d it will override your whining with winning.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)Wearying, isn't it? I don't know how on Earth President Obama stands the continual shit storm coming from the Republicans -- and all I can say at this point, as someone who has been a member of DU since 2002, thanks the gods DU is not the real world.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)Weary. Check! DU, not the real world. Check!
Friends like you. Check!
I'm covered Hekate. Thank you.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)That is just what some of the comments are saying. That is definitely a form of discrimination in itself. The OP was not about that, but many of the comments are.
Wow. That is a new thing here. The criticism of the elderly. Now I think I have seen everything.
And a juror agreed that "old white men" are in the way of progress. I am not a man, but I find that probably refers to me also.
Actually some of us old folks are pretty progressive and inclusive.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)whenever there is a semi-positive thread about Pres O, anything is subject. Older Americans, the ones who don't toll the lines I guess must be addressed.
WOW, senior, older, aged Americans who like Pres O alongwith with millions of young and middle aged. On my.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)And accusing them of standing in the way of progress. It is a ridiculous thing, and even more ridiculous is a juror putting in words that they agree.
Many of the most progressive and liberal people here are the older people, seniors, whatever. In fact we are often the ones being critical of some of the more conservative policies of Obama.
I think a message was sent tonight here, that now there is ageism going on.
There should be no place here for that. There should be no place here for any kind of discrimination at all. And especially a juror should not be saying that.
840high
(17,196 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)and by a juror just now? I don't know the technical name for it, can anyone help me on that?
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Thanks , Obama!
(from the young people)
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)appears he bought into the lie that boomers are/will be the cause of SS demise ... you know that ratio problem. It had nothing to do with the loans from SS to the general fund.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts) 
on point
(2,506 posts)Not because there is advantage in it. Double when it costs them
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Hoppy
(3,595 posts)"Let's look forward." That was his first mistake. Secrecy and N.S.A.? -- and so forth....
Then there are times when I am really proud that he's our guy.
I guess it goes back to a variation of an old quote,
"My country, right or wrong. If right, to be kept right. And if wrong, to be set right." Carl Schurz.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
msongs
(67,405 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)thank you.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)You can't credit him for the bills that do pass congress but only blame congress for the ones that don't.
As it was, it was pelosi and other house democrats such as Louise slaughter that came up with the reconciliation strategy that delivered a viable bill. Obama told pelosi just to pass the senate bill, luckily for all concerned she was a better congressional tactician than he was.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)That actually is what I like best about his governance, even against policy positions and actions I disagree with I believe he is a steady, just do the job kind of guy and I'm cool with that.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)What do you think? Are we standing in the way of progress?
It must be the okay thing here now, as it is permitted by jury.
SO, shall I continue to post.
Yes, I think so.
crim son
(27,464 posts)and fair enough. For those of us who have been disappointed, you are not the one with whom we might choose to have a meaningful discussion on the subject.
smallcat88
(426 posts)who was disappointed he caved on the public option. But I also recognize the constant obstructionism he's been up against. Illinois is thankfully one of the states that has the expanded Medicare, just in time as I fell and fractured my arm a couple of months ago. Very grateful I was able to see a doctor.
But some of the criticism against Obama has also been aimed at the Clintons. I think we need to recognize it's not just about any one person or party. Our entire political system is screwed up. And yes, we have to speak up. Too many don't, or don't vote which is how oligarchs like the Kochs manage to get away with screwing it up even further. We can support a president or a senator or congressman/woman but should never do so blindly. That's what the right-wing crazies do.
Barack Obama is human like the rest of us and makes mistakes. A big difference between him and the last guy (idiot) who had his job is that Obama can recognize and own up to his mistakes. Bush and Cheney are still trying to pretend they did nothing wrong. Has he make decisions I disagree with? Yes. Do I think we're better off with him rather than the alternatives of McCain or Romney? Also yes.
In the end, history will make it's judgment. And history will be a lot kinder to Obama than Bush. Against constant obstructionism and the worst do-nothing congress in history, Obama has managed to pull this country back from a recession that was second only to the great depression. He passed healthcare. Many before him have tried and failed on that one. He got Bin Laden after the previous administration let him go (I think they wanted to let him go, a free Bin Laden was a great rallying cry). The Lilly Ledbetter Act, the first president to come out in favor of gay marriage, ending the war in Iraq . . . The list goes on.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php
And oh yes, the first African American president has managed to face the obvious, not-so-thinly-veiled-racism hurled at him since he entered the White House with great civility. And as an Illinois resident I'm proud to say I got to vote for him as my senator before he ever ran for president. 
Rex
(65,616 posts)I will usually say something positive about it, there is usually a thread about it in GD.
certainot
(9,090 posts)no clue as to what rw radio blasts out every day.
staying with parents and listening to one show after another wonder and wax eloquently how the administration could be so tone deaf to what was happening out in the country re bergdahl. the brightest minds on PBS!
YOU FUCKING IDIOTS! what's happening is 1200 radio stations and their national and local blowhards, the same ones who sold the afghanistan and iraq, and perhaps iran in the future, with a hell of a lot of other shit like benghazi, ARE GETTING A FREE SPEECH FREE RIDE because it hurts the left's sensitive heads to listen to it, and music is so much more fun while blogging!
those radio stations reach 50 mil a week with think tank scripted bullshit to create a buzz madison avenue would wither under, and these blockheads in the media give the 10% teabagging hordes legitimacy because they ARE LOUD!
to all you naive, new, and suddenly less apathetic voters who expected a black man to march into the white billionaires' house and kick ass- wake up and pay attention.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)if we want to move forward, as Obama said when dismissed the Bush crimes so quickly! ....then we need to stop playing the race card!!!
Geithner, Summers etc. were clues from the get go and that had nothing to do with the color of one's skin.
I wanted someone with courage to tackle the tough issues, not invite the benefactors of the for profit HC industry to closed door meetings at the WH while closing the door to doctors who are on the front lines.
certainot
(9,090 posts)those think tanks were pumping whatever they wanted out of those 1200 radio stations the right could take free potshots at obama and everything he did and dominate messaging. the left NEVER GOT HIS BACK! it is naive to the max to think he could have gone after the bushes or would not have wasted a shitload of time doing so. have you been paying attention? was he going to put krugman in at treasury? who would know the inside tricks and where the money was hidden? in an emergency? to settle the markets? krugman? in a real democracy maybe, but not in this one- until americans fix the radio.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)but we also did not buy into the BS from the left. BS works both ways, people on the right and also on the left can be rather transparent, but only IF one decides to actually listen to the issues and not let some "team" thoughts predominate their opinions on a particular subject.
You seem to have a fervent belief in the Party's choice, I cannot join you in that unconditional support of 'our team vs. your team.'
Not sure how if you have been paying attention ... but in the spirit of your disjointed message I'll say 'go team'.
certainot
(9,090 posts)and spending more time on bergdahl and the take from all of them is the administration got caught by surprise again by the ferocity of the public reaction and that of some of the democratic party- mostly the blue talk radio state dogs. my parents watch that crap so i did too.
all the 'pundits' and analysts and interested citizens had to do was turn on the fucking radio for a few minutes to know the 'public' outrage started with 450 GOP think tanks scripted blowhards working it over for a week from 1200 radio stations, many of them festooned with the stickers of sports team mascots from the very same universities many of disillusioned obama supporters come from! the very same 450 blowhards who would have licked bush's ass for years for the same act of rescuing one of our own.
the MSM has been able to bend over for the talk radio gods because the left stupidly ignores rw radio while it kicks their internet ass.
and obama actually has mentioned talk radio on occasion but the left still thinks it's a waste of time.
meanwhile the 'left' and it's orgs waste their volunteer time and donations and protests because they give a few carnival barkers with big megaphones a free speech free ride to yell over everything they want to do. did you think it might have been good to have van jones on the administration? do you think scott walker and palin should never have gotten near office?
like ACORN and anita hill and hundreds of other targets of talk radio swiftboating the last 25 years, the 'left'/liberals/progressives did not get their backs and we have lost 20 years because of it. for global warming alone, ignoring rw radio is the biggest political mistake in our history.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)No factual rebuttals can get past that subsciousness filter. I saw it as soon as Obama got into office, the obiquitous photographs online of him making faces and accusations.
They were in sidebars and banners everywhere, and youtube videos have anti-Obama messaging embedded in the videos. Repetition and sneering words and tone of voice go deep down to stay inside the subconscious part of the brain that does not reflect, only reacts.
Photographs are very powerful, and videos such as those by Infowars are extremely effective in programming people. The combined sound, music, voices, scripts and moving imagery inspires fear and disgust and draws on many dramatic themes. The stable of propaganda masters are shameless fascists and use every tool in the playbook.
Obama has called people to think on higher things and work together. Those are not what the reptilian reflex is attuned to do, nor what the fight and flight part of the brain responds to either.
Gone a bit offtopic from your comment, but you make an important point on the lack of balance.
certainot
(9,090 posts)which this guy explains here:
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)so I am just getting to recognize some of the long time posters. I like Obama, I think he's done a good job, better than I expected. I understand there are people more liberal than Obama and me probably that are not that impressed with him. If there is an issue I feel strongly about,I'll voice my opinion but I'm just not going to bash the president or say dems and gop are the same, or Obama is just like Bush etc.
I look back and think I supported Eugene Mccarthy and thought Ellsberg was a hero but today I can't figure out what Snowden is up to and as much as I like Warren, I don't think she can beat a gop if she runs for president. And I still prefer liberal to progressive.
I like young people, I was young once, I was one of those young folks who pushed older folks and got in their faces, as an older folk, I expect them to push me, the rest of us. I fear apathy more than I fear criticism.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Traditionally seniors vote in high numbers. I do not for the life of me understand why this thread became about old people at DU.
Maybe it's a good thing to happen, as I see there is a general consensus here about white old people.
I had no idea people here felt that way. No idea at all.
I already am going to have a terribly hard time voting in November. Except for governor I have no Democrats to choose from. And even that is going to be a royal mess. Nan Rich the other Democrat is attacking Charlie Crist every time she opens her mouth, Bill Nelson is waiting to step in if Crist doesn't do a good job. Rich has no chance, neither does Nelson...but they are willing to throw it to Scott rather than back Crist. What a mess.
Divisions like that will give Rick Scott open field.
Somebody kicked a thread about a misuderstood cartoon just tonight though it was days old. They posted to say they did not believe I did not know about teleprompter cartoons. The cartoon in question was about Chinese hackers but it was locked for attacking Obama, and I was attacked because no one believed I did not know about teleprompter cartoons.
In this thread it seems it is cause for alarm that I did not know about the AA forum. I don't even know what forums are here really. I look for ones I feel a need for and subscribe.
And there is cause for alarm because there are so many old white men here. Give me a break. One person even differentiated between white men, and white women like me....I have no idea why.
Even just posting innocent stuff like that is reason for someone to be outraged about something.
All the party needs right now is for seniors not to vote.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)he never realized that our generation paid more into SS to account for the increase in boomers.
Did he not realize that boomers via SS loaned money to the general budget? He was totally clueless, and there he was voting several times for billions to fund our presence in Iraq. I wish some Dem would have loudly made the connection. He has had crappy financial advisors from the get go IMO, at least his statements and choices seem to have suggested.
I'm all for generally leaning Democratic, but I would like to believe my vote is not a sure thing. I am not a puppet.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I thought that cartoon was about Chinese hackers, too.
spanone
(135,830 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)to republicans.
It was a failure too, he reached out over and over and the GOP kept telling him to go to hell.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
vi5
(13,305 posts)The issue is that his super-defenders don't want ANY criticism. Like during the Bush years with his sycophants, according to the Democratic versions of that, nothing that goes wrong in the Obama administration is actually Obama's fault. It's either a republican plot to undermine him, or the result of Democrats not clapping loudly enough for him and supporting him at all costs.
And also, when he does something that is shitty, and clearly his doing, his choice, and his action and decision, something else he may have done previously that was good doesn't make the bad action o.k. It's not o.k. to willingly and knowingly adopting Republican policies and positions (off the top of my head, almost his entire education policy), but then say that's all right because his policy on gay marriage evolved (I would note, after it was painfully obvious that it was a safe and viable position, and after all the hard work had been done by other, braver individuals and groups).
treestar
(82,383 posts) randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And so can everybody else.
What is the problem?
randome
(34,845 posts)But too often, some want to leap to the most negative conclusions possible. A reflex action instead of thoughtful analysis.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]
tabasco
(22,974 posts)The utopians cannot accept gradual change for the better, destroy liberal coalitions, and always give power over to fascists.
It can happen here.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I was alarmed to see someone post about how the "old" people here were holding back things from being more progressive. It surprised me because so many of the senior population of DU are among the most liberal here.
It was a shock to see the forum now being divided by age as well as by loyalty to the president.
It was said in one post that the old white men here in the way of progress. That is an attack on a whole generation of people here. Sadly a comment from a juror agreed with the poster.
"Explanation: Yes, old white men n the way of progress. Exactly that."
That now defines the forum, and it really is divisive. I am a senior, a retired teacher, one not prone to attacking others about anything.....but now there is a whole group of people like me holding back progress. And it is an approved group, accepted by jury.
Many agreed with that also in the thread.
I remember when following a poster around the forum, digging up old posts trying to catch that poster being wrong...was defined as "calling out" or stalking...and was not permitted.
It is okay now as also defined by jury. And someone uses that now to make posting very difficult. Dredging up old posts that have me thinking, okay, what is wrong with that. There is usually nothing different, nothing wrong at all. One of the old posts of mine posted above was actually very true....the president has been looking to cut Social Security since day one. We have had to fight him on it.
It's a way to make a person think several times before posting anything. Having something we posted years ago used as a way to silence us. Actually I am proud of most of the dredged up posts, but it is still making me think if posting here is worth it anymore.
Stalking works. Defining old people as holding back progress...it will work.
That defines DU now.
Also in the thread someone told me to read the AA group. Since I only subscribe to 3 groups...education, food, and computer help...I had the nerve to ask what that was. I honestly did not know. It was pointed out that it was a shame that I did not know about it and that it was somehow a little racist that I did not. No, it was not racist....it was because I did not know it was there.
I and other "seniors" here have spent much time posting about keeping President Obama from cutting the senior safety nets. That made us progressive, and it made him conservative.
I spent a lot of time pleading for the attacks against public education by this administration to stop. That is a very progressive stance. The right wing stance is privatization, and that is what has been happening since 2009.
I did not realize such divisions were developing here. But now I do.
randome
(34,845 posts)People are free to be rude since they don't see a price to be paid.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I see what you are doing now. I asked you to read the links i provided to show you that you are NOT being oppressed or treated any WORSE than i am for your age or your color. I am treated FAR WORSE, by society and i read NASTY comments about my RACE here all the time. I get racist comments directed at me and so do other members like the time a black poster was told to GET A JOB AND STAY OUT OF JAIL in order to be treated fairly. That poster has a job and no criminal record but was treated like a FELON just for being BLACK.
Climb down off of the cross, we need the wood, we're trying to make PITCHFORKS and TORCHES, to burn down wallstreet. Old white men are not an oppressed group, they are the ones who push laws to OPPRESS women and minorities and do not need coddling any more than black women do. And they get plenty of kowtowing from society and we get none.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I never would. Your anger should not be directed at all of us who are seniors.
It makes no sense.
What I am doing now is trying to defend those of us who are seniors.
You said:
"Climb down off of the cross, we need the wood, we're trying to make PITCHFORKS and TORCHES, to burn down wallstreet. Old white men are not an oppressed group, they are the ones who push laws to OPPRESS women and minorities and do not need coddling any more than black women do. And they get plenty of kowtowing from society and we get none. "
Only some "old white men" do that. They are usually right wingers who are trolling here.
Most of us "white men and women" do not do that.
I was made to feel guilty for not knowing the AA forum was there.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Liberals should notice if there are no minorities in the room providing input.
Martin Eden
(12,864 posts)"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. ... Every man who parrots the cry of “stand by the President” without adding the proviso “so far as he serves the Republic” takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent free man could take such an attitude."
840high
(17,196 posts)
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)We forget these people are politicians, most of whom retire millionaires and have personal agendas. "Especially" in the aftermath of Citizens United.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)As the unique genius of our time, Barak Obama makes our lives possible.
He lives as a guiding light to our lives - impossible to copy yet as an inspiration He remains the most important touchstone and inspiration for the nation. Every sentence is deeply embedded with wisdom, every gesture perfectly appropriate.
The universal acclaim that greets his every proclamation proves his uncanny perfection. In comparison to him, we are all scum and rotten to the core. But only in comparison. As he soars in the permanent firmament of perfection we realize we are cruelly tethered to our simple, meaningless lives.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You are marvelous.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Obama's true base loves him, support his every decision 100% and always will, do not believe the lies of the firebagging Putin lovers that not only never really loved him but actually hate him and always will because ODS and their worship of Randian libertarianism......
[font color="blue" size="3"]And I have the link to prove it![/font]
whistler162
(11,155 posts), hand on chin and other hand supporting my elbow(for you youngsters), "I'm thinking it over."
"Thug: This is a stickup! Now come on. Your money or your life.
[long pause]
Thug: [repeating] Look, bud, I said 'Your money or your life.'
Jack Benny: I'm thinking it over!"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jack_Benny
Barack Obama is a Harry Truman type President. Alot of hard choices that many criticize but all in all a very good President.
randome
(34,845 posts)The man was a comedic genius.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Positive posts about President Obama are very common on DU. They don't get as many DU Recs as critical posts about him, but they do get posted and read. I've posted a number of them myself, as have many other DUers.
So, post away freely. I'll Rec the posts if they're good ones, too. DU sees a lot of different posting styles and topics. Pay no attention to the Recs or the people who line up to post only critical posts about the President. Just post your positive things and let DU read them.
If the uber-critical posts about President Obama cause you stress, you can eliminate them by putting about half a dozen people on Ignore. I don't do it, but it works just fine. You'll be amazed at how DU changes if you do.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)the Third Way Party.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)just as it's okay to criticize the President whenever I feel critical.
I don't bother to criticize him much anymore; he's a lame duck, I never loved him, and I hold him responsible for doing too much damage with key issues that drive my life and my political support. I'm not good at pretense, and I've never pretended otherwise. He had numerous opportunities to earn my support, but he didn't really want it.
Praise him all you like; you do plenty of that. I don't hold that against you. I don't read your praises, because they don't change anything about my day to day life dealing with his policies; they just piss me off.
I do read other, non-Obama related things that you post, and I've found them thoughtful and worthy of reading and thinking about. I respect you, and I value you, even if I'm not ever going to agree with you about Barack Obama. I can live with that. Can you?
rug
(82,333 posts)Support, yes. Criticize, yes. Praise, no.
It is dangerous to praise any politician. Particularly on those rare occasions when they're doing exactly what they were elected to do.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)A lot of corporate friendly democrat are socially liberal. That's great but doesn't excuse them from being Wall Street instruments otherwise. So - two gay guys or gals can marry, terrific, but then they'll have to live with the truly awful TPP, which Obama tried to fast track by us? Or the fact that that no Wall Street Titans ever spent a day in prison for widespread blatant fraud? Maybe because he went with the Rubin crowd as his financial team, the same Wall Street insiders who got us in that mess.
It's not just Obama, too many democrats say hey, I'm progressive, I'm for gay marriage but still are corporate tools to one degree or another.
Obamacare will help some people but on the other hand it's a windfall for the insurance companies, where CEOs are making 10 million a year and for what exactly that has to do with health care?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)People can also comment back.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)there have been many. I dont like the posts in GD that are only aimed at adulation. Those posts usually turn into flame wars with both sides at fault.
But I also want to add that if you think you should be able to post threads praising the good things, you should also understand when others point out when they disagree with the President. You point out that this is a Democratic site and I would in turn point out that IMO a good Democrat sees a responsibility to hold representatives accountable and not blindly follow as the Conservatives do.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Nor is it as "progressive" as some people here make it out to be.
When there's an ugly undercurrent (and sometimes, more blatant examples) of racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia-bigotry commonly associated with the Right, in other words-that masquerades as "populist progressivism" or "REAL liberalism" (because our twice elected Democratic President is apparently a right-wing corporatist or "DINO-as if the current problems of this country started with him while Congress and the Roberts Court have no responsibility), then it's no wonder that many feminists/women, people of color, members of the LGBT community, immigrants, etc. have decided to leave, or don't feel supported here in general.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't think many people say Obama is the sole cause, or that he started it or that there isn't blame to go around. They criticize him when he does things that support the shitty aspects of the system, like excessive corporate power.
As the most powerful elected official in the country, he is going be singled out both by his supporters, opponents and by critical supporters.
But if all you pay attention to are the personal criticisms of him that arise, then you're ignoring the bigger picture that many people are much more concerned about than any one politician.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)I don't belong to any organized political party... I'm a Democrat.
I did vote for him twice and at times he has disappointed me.
I give him praise when he deserves it, and I give him criticism when he deserves it.
Sorry, but my party affiliation doesn't pledge me to some supposed belief of infallibility.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
I kid. I hope you know I kid. Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)"I have reconsidered my support of the TPP trade deal. I made a mistake. I have now concluded that in the whole these trade deals have been very costly for working class American men and women. From now on my focus will be on protecting American jobs for American workers even if this requires enacting tariffs or other barriers to trade."
That would be a start. The President could also change his position on education. The President could express his unequivocal support for the USPS and organized labor. He could also stop appointing industry insiders to decide such vital issues as NET NEUTRALITY.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)It's become the new intersection of NorquistDogLake and the daily paul. 
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)The best four months in a row.
Even by driving the economy into the ground, Bush couldn't do that in eight years.
Praise be Obama.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)many of us praise his beneficial actions even as we critique the bad moves.
I genuinely feel that this rant would be far more accurate if reversed. Ie "when is it appropriate to hold the presidents feet to the fire" and "never once do you admit his failures". Because as I read posts here on DU, it appears anyone who ever admits a single failing is held up as a hater. Its kinda like race. One distant relative who's not white, and you are labled that ethnicity even though you look Caucasian, were raised wasp, etc. I haven't seen that exclusion from the side wanting more progress toward democratic core values.
On my darker days, I would say that based on their arguments and language, many of the apparent Obama supporting diehards are actually doing their best to undermine him, by driving as many people away as possible. Its kinda bizarre. It feels a lot like trying to get accurate product information from a salesman you know will literally lie about anything possible to make the sale ASAP now.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)The problem is that some always will or never will. There is no place for such extremes in the complex thing we call life.
albino65
(484 posts)Such a weak president would:
Successfully get to the negotiation table with Iran rather than invade as the old war mongers would have?
Negotiate a way for Syria to get rid of their chemical weapons rather than put boots on the ground so that more mothers could weep at their children's funerals?
Maneuver a never done before universal health care act, that while not being perfect is at least something, through both chambers of congress despite daunting opposition who would rather see people die than see any of their patrons in big medicine, big phrama, big insurance lose a dime? There have been 51 attempts to repeal, defund, or weaken this act.
Prodded Sen Reid to use the nuclear option to actually get something done in the Senate?
Prodded the whole United States to seriously face the question of raising the minimum wage with a stroke of the pen?
Endure the most blatant racism from members of congress and the whole right wing cabal and still keep his hand to the tiller?
Did not cave again to the sword rattling from the "Masters of War" (sorry Bob Dylan) and do something provocative in the Ukraine? The masters will never give up their attempts at hegemony and nation destroying.
These are but a few of his accomplishments.
Weak? I prefer to call him thoughtful, strong, deliberate, and the best president we ever had.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)He truly is one of the greatest Presidents of the post WWII era.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)feel persecuted and victimized when those of us who can clearly see the obstacles our President has had to face, along with recognizing his imperfections without feeling the need to demonize him don't agree with their assessments of the man. I really do love this man, and believe he is doing the utmost best possible considering the opposition against him. I don't think I'm a "Kool-Aid drinker" for believing this. I thought DU was supposed to be a haven from the right wing dominated comments all across the internet, and in a way, it is. So why people are shocked that their conveying the same anti-Obama shit we all have read from the far right wing might be met with disagreement is quite baffling. There are millions of places on the internet where your anti-Obama screeds will be welcome, but why should they be welcomed here? I think people here who are genuine in their disagreement with some of President Obama's policies are treated with respect, but most of us are on to those who are being disingenuous by continually criticizing him every chance they get. To those people, I would say, we're not fucking blind.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Thank you. I could not have said it better myself!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts) 
Jake2413
(226 posts)
barbtries
(28,789 posts)i still support this president and i'm still glad he's president even though he has not done everything i wish he would do or the way i wish he would do it.
and i cannot forget the fucking republicans and how hard they have worked to undercut him and ruin his presidency. i am behind him all the way if only because i feel as if i must be to counteract their bullshit.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts) I'm almost embarrassed to be associated with DU based on that claptrap.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)The damned left is too obsessed by liberal "works" and therefore can't understand that his grace is all that is required for salvation.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)But until that time, I'll be focusing on the GOP-led *destruction* of North Carolina. The old DU would have been all over that.
Based on His followers alone, I'm almost looking forward to January 2017... wonder how they'll function with Him out of office.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)we have lost our direction as a site and as a party. It's not really surprising that we get nothing done.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)And what's perplexing is that so many vociferously defend a president who doesn't identify that strongly with being a Democrat. Well, maybe it's not that perplexing at all...
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In the whole history of DU, has there ever been one single post that was hidden because its content was too favorable to Obama?
If DUer A criticizes an Obama appointee as too right-wing, and DUer B defends the appointment and adds, "You're an asshole," then that post praising Obama will be hidden, and rightly so. But that's because of the personal attack, not because of the praise of Obama.
You want to feel persecuted. You want to feel oppressed. Your problem is that the only persecution and oppression going on is that progressives sometimes express disagreement with specific actions (or inactions) by Obama.
If you don't want to read anything that criticizes Obama, stick to the BOG. Most of DU is a discussion group -- not open to all opinions (go to Discussionist for the RWNJ viewpoint), but open to a range of divergent opinions on the left, including the opinion that Obama is sometimes too far to the right.
So, to answer your silly question -- it's OK to praise the President on DU at all times and in all manners. The only people who have to think about what's OK on DU are those who want to voice a criticism of Obama. Those are the posts that are risk of being hidden based on their substance.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And you have too, if you're honest about it.
So no, the question isn't silly. Last time I checked he was the party leader, and after all, the goal here is to elect more DEMOCRATS--not Republicans, not Greens, not Libertarians, not Reform Party candidates--to public office.
What's "silly" is your dismissal of the concerns raised here. It's not just about posts getting hidden, it's about pushback against the people who craft those posts.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Your argument that there are instances in which it is not "okay to praise the President on DU" is that sometimes, if you do it, other DUers will express disagreement with your argument.
It's a discussion board. Deal with it.
As for your contention that posters are "singled out and mocked" -- I don't understand "singled out". If DUer A writes a post praising Obama for appointing yet another Wall Streeter to an important economic position, and I want to express my disagreement, the software automatically displays a window that's headed "Response to original post by DUer A". I might well say, "DUer A, I disagree with you." That isn't being "singled out" in any unfair sense.
Yes, people are sometimes mocked here. People are called Obamabots, right-wing trolls, morons, assholes, etc. Personal insults of that type have come from people criticizing Obama and from people defending Obama. They should be hidden whichever side they come from.
But if the "pushback against the people who craft those posts" takes the form of reasoned disagreement from a progressive point of view, then you have no basis for whining about it. Address the merits. As Wayne LaPierre never said, the only thing that can stop a DUer with a bad argument is a DUer with a good argument.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This has nothing to do with "arguments."
The objecting posts make fun of the BOG, or they single out ProSense or make snarky, childish comments about "blue links" (as if proving one's point with citations is being a pencil necked geek, or something--a real wingnutty argument, the blue links one).
The point is, there is no "argument." The objections are all PERSONALITY DRIVEN. They can be summed up as
--I don't like you.
--I don't like the group you associate yourself with.
--I don't like the fact that you prove what you are saying.
--I find your style or tone wanting.
Absolutely NOTHING to do with "arguments." No one minds a good discussion...it's a shitty discussion that irritates. And what I see isn't a "good" argument or a "bad" argument--it's NO argument. Childish sniping about personalities and associations...oh, and BLUE LINKS.
But hey, you carry on smartly...or whatever.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I completely agree with you that there are posts on DU that are just "personality driven". I hope you'll agree with me that such posts have been made by people praising Obama as well as by those criticizing him on a particular point.
Your post appears to imply, however, that no post criticizing Obama has ever been based on a reasonable argument. That would be an outlandish position. Is it what you're maintaining?
To take one example, the OP mentioned Obamacare. Obama promised to insist on a "robust public option" and then presented a proposal that didn't include it. Was that a good choice on his part, because the votes weren't there? Was it a bad choice, because by pressing for it he might have swung the necessary votes, and could always have dropped it in a later compromise? Was it a good choice, because even proposing it might have sunk the whole package? Was it a bad choice, because putting it on the table, even if it got deleted, might have helped move the whole national discussion further to the left?
My opinion is that he should have at least proposed it. My further opinion, though, is that DUers on both sides have advanced reasonable arguments, but that DUers on both sides have engaged in snark, petulance, personal attacks, etc.
I'm not clear if you're saying that no critic of Obama ever has a reasonable argument, or that no one praising Obama ever engages in personal attacks, or both, or neither, or something else.
MADem
(135,425 posts)A lot of the griping has to do with personalities, associations, and blue links.
My post doesn't "appear to imply" anything. I think I'm quite forthright.
The vast majority of critical posts take swipes at "the BOG" and criticize personalities. They use terms like "the usual suspects" and "worshippers" and other loaded language. I've rarely--if ever--seen a thread that consisted of pure and reasoned "arguments." There's always got to be some of that dissing, trashing and "trolling from the left" bullshit that is tiresome in the extreme (the old "He's a rightwinger" meme that is just so lame and tiresome).
I don't think even Bernie Sanders, in his heart of hearts, thought Obama should have proposed a public option. Why? Because some efforts are a complete and total waste of time and serve only to delay (or defeat) implementation of the best deal available--even if it is not optimal.
Obama had to dance with the ones what brung him--AND the ones what was brung to the legislature. We did a good job bringing him to the White House, not such a swift job giving him a legislature that could help him get the damn job done.
That's life.
I'm in the half a loaf crowd; even though I, personally, have no need for Obamacare, I know that it benefits a large number of people and I'm glad they have access to health care. It's a start.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write, "A lot of the griping has to do with personalities, associations, and blue links." I could say the same thing about the "griping" that gripes about criticism of Obama.
The most obvious example is Glenn Greenwald. How many times have we seen this scenario: Greenwald points out, correctly, that the Obama administration is violating the Bill of Rights in some respect. Someone here posts a link to the column. One result (you can take this to the bank) will be personal attacks on Greenwald. THIS CRITICISM OF OBAMA COMES FROM GREENWALD! GREENWALD ONCE STATED (correctly, but never mind that) THAT RON PAUL VOTED AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION! THEREFORE GREENWALD IS A RIGHT-WINGER AND WE CAN IGNORE EVERYTHING HE SAYS AND ANYONE WHO POSTS A QUOTATION FROM GREENWALD IS A LIBERTARIAN AND/OR A RIGHT-WING TROLL!
I use all caps to convey what I personally perceive to be the shrillness of the attacks on Greenwald. I have no problem with people who want to dispute a particular Greenwald point. He's not always right. My point is that Ron Paul's opposition to Social Security sheds zero light on whether the NSA under Obama has been overreaching, yet that response is all too common here. Similar non sequiturs occur in other threads where someone criticizes a specific Obama decision.
You assert that " t)he vast majority of critical posts" reflect such a lack of reasoned argument. My personal observation is that the majority of posts criticizing Obama and the majority of posts praising Obama are sensible, but that each side has a few bad apples.
Finally, I do think hides and PPR's are relevant if you're asking what's "okay" on DU, as the OP does. Having your post disagreed with doesn't mean that it's not okay to post that viewpoint. Having your post mocked with personal insults is unfortunate but still doesn't mean that it's not okay. Having your post hidden is what shows it to be not okay -- and I still believe that hides based on content affect posts critical of Obama but seldom or never affect posts praising Obama.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Speaking of dumbass gripings, calling someone's POV "silly" is a perfect example of a pretty lame approach to discussion. What a way to marginalize a person, and their point of view:
I don't like your perspective, ergo your questions are "silly."
Glenn Greenwald's opinions are not "fact." They aren't "correct" either--GG does not have standing to say what's a constitutional violation, or what isn't--unless he's morphed into five Supreme Court justices before our eyes.
But see what you just did? You laid out a scenario where you're right, and everyone else is wrong--because you say so, based on a flawed assertion. You've made yourself judge, jury and executioner, and then you get mad at the "shrill" (hmmmmmmm) people who disagree with your "correct" (so sez you) opinion.
There's no "arguing" against anything like that. You've already made up your mind. And you, with a chip on your shoulder, take issue with others who -- looking at what you're dishing -- have a chip on theirs.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I wrote that there could be reasonable arguments on both sides of some questions. Your interpretation of that is "You laid out a scenario where you're right, and everyone else is wrong--because you say so, based on a flawed assertion."
Meanwhile, throughout this exchange, you yourself have not once conceded that anyone could possibly criticize Obama for any reason based on principled disagreement. According to you:
It must be nice to go through life knowing that everyone who disagrees with you does so from bad motives. Alas, it's a pleasure I haven't experienced.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And nice cut and paste to warp my POV. You apparently forgot to read the bit where I said
I don't see "fault" in opinions. They're just points of view.
It was only the post title, I can see how you might have missed it ...
And who, save you, got into "bad motives?" You're projecting as well as ignoring your own "silly" verdicts about what anyone else has to say.
You're right about one thing. This isn't useful communication at all.
IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)so that way one can never feel happy about anything ever. Gratitude is for losers.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)sheshe2
(83,751 posts)Unfortunately it is necessary.
And the usual suspects piled on~
